Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords]

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Base Vehicle Depot, Ashford

Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the base vehicle depot at Ashchurch. [34897]

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): We continue to update the investment appraisal that led to the decision to opt for a single site at Ashchurch for long-term Army vehicle storage.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, and also for keeping me continuously informed by answers to parliamentary questions and in correspondence. Originally, the decision was made to transfer all the Army's storage and vehicle maintenance to the site at Ashchurch in my constituency, and yet, a year after that decision, a further investment appraisal has been commissioned. That is very unsettling for the 206 civilian employees in my constituency. I understand that the results of the further appraisal will be announced at the end of July. Will my hon. Friend confirm that that is the case, so that my constituents can get on with making a private sector bid under the private finance initiative bid—which is a huge undertaking—in line with the Government's thinking?

Mr. Soames: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who has lobbied hard for his constituents in this matter. I also regret that we should—of necessity in such a big project—have found it necessary to go back and to confirm the investment appraisal estimates—something that happens often in projects of this size and type. I urge him not to be alarmed in any way. While we await the results—which I confirm will be at the end of July—I see no sign that the earlier decision should be called into question in any way.

Mr. Murphy: Does the Minister agree that his attempts to merge the two Army vehicle depots into one at Ashchurch simply have not worked, and that the entire

scheme now needs to be reviewed? Does he accept that his estimated savings of £25 million over 30 years will be completely wiped out by huge increases in transport costs and by a £33 million bill for new roads and new buildings? Is that not just another example of classic financial incompetence?

Mr. Soames: I can agree with none of that claptrap, which is ill-founded, ill-informed, ignorant and wide of the mark in every respect and to every degree. It is an entirely sensible and rational decision. We have no reason to believe that very substantial savings will not be made. We regard it as another example of decisive, clear decision making and clear leadership by a Government who are quite clear of the way they are going.

Mr. Barry Field: Will my hon. Friend have another look at those plans to reassure himself that they are adequate when reinforcements and military vehicles are required in the light of the call for independence for the Isle of Wight by the leader of its Liberal-controlled council? I do not know what the Liberal Democrats as a military dictatorship on the Isle of Wight do to the enemy, but, politically, they scare the hell out of me.

Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend may be wholly reassured that the position of Ashchurch is entirely compatible with the whole-hearted defence of the Isle of Wight.

Bosnia

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to visit Bosnia to discuss the deployment of British forces. [34898]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Portillo): I shall be visiting British forces in Bosnia in September.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why is it not part of IFOR's mandate to apprehend war criminals and to bring them to the tribunal in the Hague? Why cannot changes be made to secure that objective in IFOR's mandate—or are we, as usual, simply ducking the issue?

Mr. Portillo: The primary role of the implementation force is the implementation of the Dayton peace agreement and, in particular, the separation of forces, the returning of forces to barracks and getting the weapons of the warring factions into compounds. The forces will hand over to justice those indicted war criminals with whom they come into contact, but it is not a part of their primary objective to conduct a manhunt for the indicted war criminals. Those are matters for the international tribunal that is conducting the indictment, and it will issue the warrants for the arrest of the indicted war criminals.

Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is in Britain's national interest to continue to play our part in the United Nations and NATO operations in Bosnia? Will he also confirm that, if the reported proposed cuts in the defence budget of some £400 million proceed, we shall not be able to do so? Is he aware of the vast support among Conservative Members—also, I dare say, from a number of Opposition Members—for the defence budget


to be not only maintained at its present level of 2.8 per cent. of gross domestic product, but restored to last year's level of 3 per cent?

Mr. Portillo: It is extremely important to retain strong national defences and to make the appropriate commitment to our defence budget. We have given undertakings to provide stability following a period of great change that our forces undertook with great distinction. My hon. Friend must not become carried away with what he reads in the newspapers.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: As the full horror of the consequences of the fall of Srebrenica is revealed to us, is it not offensive that Dr. Karadzic and General Mladic continue to be at liberty? Will the Secretary of State confirm that the question whether or not they should be taken into custody is one of timing and not principle? Does he accept that there is a connection between that and an early decision on whether there should be a follow-on force to the implementation force as a demonstration of our commitment to ensure that all who are guilty of war crimes will ultimately be brought to justice?

Mr. Portillo: I agree that the continued liberty of those two men is offensive, and there can be no ultimate solution in Bosnia-Herzegovina unless they are brought to justice. I certainly agree that they will, in time, be brought to justice and there is no issue of principle whatsoever in the matter. I am not so sure that I agree that a decision about a follow-on force needs to be taken yet, and a little patience on that question is appropriate. Whatever it may decide on that issue, the international community is committed to the Dayton peace agreement and to a strategy to make sure that the agreement is successful in the long term.

Sir Patrick Cormack: If my right hon. Friend believes—as he says he does—that those two men should be brought to justice, does he agree that it makes a mockery of the whole process that, although IFOR has a large force in Bosnia, they remain at large? Should they not be taken to The Hague and put on trial? Would that not do more than any other single factor to bring this appalling and terrible tragedy to a more satisfactory conclusion?

Mr. Portillo: That is a judgment for the international community. It is a difficult one, and there are other factors. The international community's top priority at the moment in Bosnia is the holding of free and fair elections to produce a Government that is democratic and representative of the wishes of the people. My hon. Friend must remember that many other hard-liners stand behind Karadzic and Mladic, and the removal of those individuals will not necessarily deal with the whole problem. My hon. Friend must bear those factors in mind when he considers the way in which the international community addresses the problems.

Dr. Reid: Whatever reservations on specific issues have been raised, I am sure that the whole House agrees that our troops and IFOR have played a vital role in the transition from war to peace. Surely it is now right to give serious consideration to a follow-on force. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) has made it plain that the Opposition believe that British troops should play some part in that force. Does the Secretary of State

agree that it is important that that force should be composed of significant numbers of all our allies? Will he therefore illustrate to the House for operational and political reasons that he will urge all our allies to play a part in that force when and if it is established?

Mr. Portillo: I have argued not that it is too early to consider the matter but that it is too early to reach conclusions or make announcements about them. If there were to be a follow-on force, it would be essential that it should be a NATO force, that the NATO allies should be involved—and involved in the same way as each other. If there were to be ground forces, they would have to come from all the nations. The hon. Gentleman is pushing against an open door. It is understood that, whatever NATO decides to do in Bosnia, NATO will do together.

European Security

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met his French opposite number to discuss European security issues. [34899]

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. James Arbuthnot): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence meets his French counterpart regularly; they last meet during the meeting of NATO Defence Ministers in Brussels on 13 June.

Mr. Jenkin: Whatever bilateral or multilateral arrangements we make with our European counterparts, does my hon. Friend agree that, unless they are supplementary to the fundamental alliance we have in NATO across the Atlantic with the Americans, we are treading down a dangerous path? Has he considered what risks are posed to the credibility of NATO by new Labour and the new danger of its proposal to give up the veto?

Mr. Arbuthnot: As always, my hon. Friend puts his finger on the point. I agree that closer ties with France, with Europe and with the United States are all essential, especially for defence procurement. We shall continue to procure equipment in the United Kingdom, in Europe and in the United States: from wherever it is best, and financially and economically sensible, to do so.

Mr. Kaufman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State would have been able to discuss those issues with the French Minister of War Veterans and Victims of War had he been present a week yesterday at the Somme commemoration at Thiepval? A constituent of mine who was present has written to express his "disgust and dismay" at the fact that, while the French had a "splendid contribution" of
a full company of over 200 French troops and a full French military band",
our regular forces were represented by
a lone Scots Guard piper and a couple of … buglers.
What explanation does he have for my constituent and for all the people who mourn those who fell on the Somme?

Mr. Arbuthnot: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman feels it right to make cheap points out of a very important commemoration, at which we were fully


represented at the highest level by a Cabinet Minister whose father fought on the Somme. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman feels it right to behave in such a way.

NATO

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future development of NATO. [34900]

Mr. Portillo: NATO is the cornerstone of European defence arrangements. It must evolve to reflect the demands of its new missions, to absorb new members, and to develop a European defence identity within the alliance. We shall play our full part.

Mrs. Gorman: Given that NATO has preserved the peace in Europe for the past 50 years and that, throughout that period, our nuclear weaponry has been jointly under control of our Government and of the NATO allies, will my right hon. Friend comment on the report issued by the Defence Committee of the European Union which calls for our nuclear weapons, together with those of France, to be placed under the control of a new European defence force?

Mr. Portillo: That proposal is severely misguided. Our nuclear deterrent has, as my hon. Friend said, had a dual purpose since its inception. It has been available for national defence and has been made available for NATO defence. NATO is the appropriate body for the security and defence of Europe. It will remain so, and Britain will remain among its firmest supporters.

Mr. Macdonald: Is not the credibility of the NATO mission in Bosnia constantly being eroded by the continued freedom of Karadzic and Mladic? Is it not time that NATO took serious action to bring them to justice, and is not a NATO follow-on force inconceivable while they are at large in Bosnia?

Mr. Portillo: I have largely dealt with those points already. I add only that, although the long-term peace of Bosnia-Herzegovina depends upon those people being brought to justice, I do not conclude that if, for any reason, they were at liberty at the end of the year, we could not have a follow-on force; nor do I believe that the credibility and effectiveness of the NATO force is called into question by the matter.

Horseshoe Barracks, Shoeburyness

Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to make a decision on the future of the Horseshoe barracks, Shoeburyness. [34901]

Mr. Soames: I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that we decided last Friday to dispose of most of Horseshoe barracks, Shoeburyness. My Department will retain a small enclave to provide facilities for Defence Evaluation and Research Agency staff at New Ranges.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his statement, as the barracks have been under-used for a long time. Can he give me a clear assurance that he will

work together with the local council to make sure that, as far as possible, this superb site is used to increase employment in Southend, where it is very much needed?

Mr. Soames: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance, and I thank him for all the work that he has done to push us forward to this conclusion. I regret that it has taken so long. As my hon. Friend knows, there is no further defence use for the site. We will therefore establish a joint working party to consider all the options open to us. It will consist of the Ministry of Defence, Essex county council, Southend-on-Sea borough council and possibly English Heritage. I am happy to give my hon. Friend all the assurances that he seeks.

Married Quarters Estate

Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the sale of armed forces' married quarters. [34902]

Mr. Portillo: The Government are committed to providing decent quarters for service families and to maintaining military communities which provide service families with security and support. The sale will enable us to spend money on improving the condition of the houses and will progressively remove from us the burden of empty properties.

Mr. Bayley: Why does the Secretary of State think that the Royal British Legion does not know what it is talking about when it says that the Conservative party's proposal to sell off the homes of the families of members of the armed forces
demonstrates ignorance of service people's real needs"?

Mr. Portillo: We obviously have a need to explain this policy carefully to all those who have an interest. Ministers will be meeting the Royal British Legion to make sure that it is explained. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the chiefs of staff, who are concerned with the needs of the armed forces today, are supportive of the policy, and publicly so. That is because they know that it is in the interests of service families, that there is no other way in which we could spend £100 million on improving the properties in which our service families live today and that the safeguards that have been put in place are rigorous.

Mr. Aitken: Does my right hon. Friend find it rather surprising that there should be so much ado about a scheme which will provide better married quarters for service personnel? Will he confirm that there is no other way in which £100 million could have been spent on upgrading the majority of service homes to grade 1 condition in five years? Does he accept that the cause of good accommodation for the services should be one that unites rather than divides the House of Commons?

Mr. Portillo: I agree with that. I know that, when my right hon. Friend held responsibility in the Ministry of Defence, he wrestled with this question and came to a conclusion similar to my own—that the sort of money needed to improve the quality of the housing could be released only by this method. I believe that it will enable the Ministry of Defence to take a much clearer view of


the way in which the housing estate should be managed—that is to say, to make sure that we have the right sort of properties in the right place at the right time and that when we dispose of properties, which is something that we need to do, we pay more attention to preserving the integrity of military communities.

Dr. David Clark: Does the Secretary of State not realise how much anguish, concern and worry this ill-thought-out scheme has caused the families of our service men and women? Does he not yet appreciate how important it is for the peace of mind of men and women serving abroad that their families are safe and secure back here in Britain? Will he not, even at this eleventh hour, look at this scheme again, follow the suggestion of the Royal British Legion and announce a postponement of the scheme pending a full review?

Mr. Portillo: No, I do not think that that is a good idea. It is not an ill-thought-out scheme and has not been put together in a hurry; it is something about which the Government have been thinking for a matter of years. The proposals in their present form have been communicated to people since last November; there has been a lot of time for people to think about them. My Ministers and I have been rigorous in explaining the scheme's details. I regret that some people have been caused unnecessary anxieties and have been led to hold fears about the scheme that simply should not arise from it. While I entirely agree with the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) that it is extremely important to allay the fears of families, particularly when the service person may be serving abroad, I ask the hon. Gentleman not to add to those concerns and anxieties unnecessarily.

Independent Nuclear Deterrent

Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received in support of Britain's independent nuclear deterrent. [34903]

Mr. Portillo: The contribution made by the United Kingdom's independent nuclear forces to overall deterrence and security in Europe continues to be widely recognised, including by our North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies.

Sir Michael Neubert: Was my right hon. Friend as surprised as I was to read recent reports that the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Foreign Secretary have suddenly become strong supporters of Britain's independent nuclear deterrent? Does not the picture of former members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament thrusting forward to put their finger on the nuclear button strain credulity to breaking point?

Mr. Portillo: I confess that I am at a complete loss to understand it. I do not know why the Leader of the Opposition was a determined opponent of nuclear weapons while we faced the Soviet Union, but is now strongly in favour of them. I do not know why the Leader of the Opposition has not seen fit to give the House an explanation of his change of view. My hon. Friend is too generous to the Opposition: as I understand the position, the Leader of the Opposition is in favour of pushing the button, the defence spokesman has said clearly that he

would not be in favour of pressing the button and the shadow Foreign Secretary has said that he is glad that the decision would not be for him. If a decision were to be made by a Labour Cabinet, the Prime Minister of that Labour Government would be in favour of using the nuclear option, the Defence Secretary would be against it and the Foreign Secretary would leave the Cabinet Room to wash his hands.

Mr. MacShane: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the Ministry of Defence is in talks with the French Ministry of Defence about nuclear collaboration? Can he further confirm that British war planes will fly down the Champs Elysées on Sunday to salute the French revolution and its slogan of liberty, equality and fraternity? Many people in this country are glad that the Ministry of Defence is the most pro-French and pro-European Ministry—in practice, if not in rhetoric.

Mr. Portillo: I am pleased to find that the French have the most pro-British Ministry of Defence. President Chirac has again and again paid compliments to British armed forces, to the defence costs studies, to the way that we have gone about reforming our armed services. He has said on a number of occasions that he wishes to remodel the French forces with an eye on the professionalism of the British forces. There is a good deal of admiration in this country for French forces; we admire them very much and we co-operated with them in Bosnia. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the feeling is mutual.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only have we won the argument about retaining a nuclear capability based on the Clyde in Scotland, where CND used to practise its marches and other activities, but we have demonstrated clearly that the Labour party is divided on the issue, defence is unsafe in its hands and it is unfit to govern?

Mr. Portillo: We won not only the argument, but the cold war. We would not have won the cold war had we followed the policies of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which were supported by hundreds of Opposition Members and by the Leader of the Opposition. If today in eastern Europe hundreds of millions of people enjoy freedom and if today in Russia people are voting for their Government in a democratic state, those hundreds of millions of people enjoying those freedoms owe nothing to the Labour party.

Mr. Spellar: Does the Minister agree that
Complete and general nuclear disarmament remains a desirable and ultimate goal"?
[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] It appears that one or two Conservative Back Benchers do not recognise those words, which are probably familiar to the Minister; they are from the Conservative Government's Defence statement in 1994. Does he accept that Labour policy clearly states that a new Labour Government will retain Trident and that we will press for multilateral negotiations towards mutual balanced and verifiable reductions in nuclear weapons? Is not it about time that he stopped trying to score cheap party political points and put the national interest first?

Mr. Portillo: The British Government will continue to observe their obligations under article 6 of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which are to pursue in good faith measures towards nuclear disarmament.
The hon. Gentleman failed to tell me two things during his intervention. He failed to correct my impression, which is that the defence spokesman is not in favour of using nuclear weapons if it were necessary for the defence of this country, and that he did not commit himself to replace the Trident nuclear deterrent. So we have had only a limited amount of movement from the Labour party, and it is now time for Labour to come clean on the rest of its policy.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Is not one of the key reasons for retaining and upgrading our nuclear weapons the real problem of the threat of nuclear proliferation, which, despite the fact that we have a treaty, is going on? Does he agree that what divides us from the Opposition is the fact that we will say to any potential enemy, "We are prepared to use these. Dare you at your own risk?" whereas they would say to a potential enemy, "We are not sure whether we might use these. Dare you? We are not sure. We might pack it in first"?

Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is right. We have moved out of a cold war into an era when many dangers could be presented to this country and to her allies. This is not a time to lose nerve or to send uncertain signals. We have always made perfectly clear the fact that we have a nuclear deterrent, and that that means that, ultimately, we would be ready to use it in the defence of our country and of our allies.
The message that comes from the Labour party, which purports to want to form a Government, is that now the Leader of the Opposition says that he is in favour of the nuclear deterrent—who can believe him when he has been against it for 10 years?—that the defence spokesman is against the nuclear deterrent and that the shadow Foreign Secretary is merely pleased that it is not his decision to take. What sort of signal does that send about Britain's determination?

Official Hospitality

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was spent in his Department on official hospitality in 1995–96. [34904]

Mr. Arbuthnot: During financial year 1995–96, my Department spent £5.105 million on official hospitality.

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Banks: Some of my colleagues seem to think that £5.1 million is a lot of money. Actually, the Minister has got the answer wrong, and it pays to come into this place knowing the answers to questions. The actual figure is £5,334,092.80, which represents a 9.62 per cent. increase on the figure for entertainment in 1994–95.
Does the Minister feel that, at a time when military service people are receiving P45s and being thrown out of their houses, it is wrong for Ministers and brass hats—including the Secretary of State—to spend so much money on hospitality, unless the Minister is about to announce a new defence policy whereby we get all our enemies together and party with them till they drop?

Mr. Arbuthnot: The hon. Gentleman jokes with us. The problem with political jokes is that sometimes they get elected, and he is the living embodiment of that. It is

because of questions similar to the one he asks that we commissioned an independent report by Sir Peter Cazalet, which said last year that the level of entertainment carried out is probably about right.
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can remind us whether he returned the Greater London council silver—or did he hang on to it for home entertainment?

Mr. Wilkinson: Let me give my hon. Friend some free consultancy advice about MOD entertaining. Would it not be appropriate in the financial year 1996–97 to invite representatives of the Baltic states to Headquarters Allied Forces North-West to see how Norway has been a first-class member of NATO without allowing the stationing of foreign troops or nuclear weapons on its soil? Could this not be a useful precedent for the enlargement of NATO, and a good use of taxpayers' money?

Mr. Arbuthnot: I agree with my hon. Friend that Norway is a first-class member of NATO. He raises an important point, which is that, overseas, perhaps more than in the United Kingdom, entertainment is used as a normal method of doing business. The majority of our overseas posts could not operate nearly as effectively in the United Kingdom's interest without taking part in the social activities that are involved. The entertainment is therefore worth every penny that we spend on it.

RAF Hospital, Wroughton

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how he intends to dispose of the site of the former Princess Alexandra RAF hospital at Wroughton. [34906]

Mr. Soames: The site will be sold on the open market later this year.

Mr. Coombs: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer, although I could not hear it. Is he aware that, since the MOD left the RAF hospital at Wroughton, virtually no maintenance of the site has been undertaken? As a result, the grass is now very high and represents a distinct fire hazard to all those who live in the neighbourhood. Could he arrange for something to be done about that? Does he recollect his promise to me in the House last year that, if the RAF hospital were closed, the service to my constituents would not deteriorate? Does he realise that there is now a £2 million shortfall in the money needed to continue to give my constituents a proper health service? Will he therefore join me in making representations to the Department of Health to ensure that those with that responsibility match up to it and improve the service by reintroducing the £2 million that has been lost?

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to the matter in the first part of his question. Vacated buildings deteriorate quickly, and I assure my hon. Friend that I shall have the matter dealt with at once. On the funding of the local NHS trust and other matters, which I well remember my hon. Friend raising with me, I regret that he should find himself in that position, and I shall draw his views to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health so that he may see what we can do to help.

Armed Forces' Medical Services

Mr. Viggers: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress in co- ordinating the training and control of the medical services of the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force. [34907]

Mr. Soames: The Surgeon General is satisfied that the reorganisation of the defence medical services is progressing well.

Mr. Viggers: Does my hon. Friend agree that there has inevitably been turbulence as the medical services of the Army, Navy and Air Force are moved to the Royal hospital, Haslar, in my constituency? Does he share my hope that there will be some stability in future? Will he make a progress statement on the medical college's move to HMS Dolphin, adjoining the Royal hospital, Haslar?

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that question. I endorse his view that bringing the three medical services together under one roof inevitably involves a change of culture, and there has been some turbulence. The House can take great satisfaction from the extraordinarily clever and able way in which the medical services have handled themselves in Bosnia. No decision has yet been reached on the college's move from Millbank to HMS Dolphin, although I have noted the splendid case put forward by my hon. Friend, which I am sure is receiving detailed attention. I look forward to giving him what I hope will be positive news later in the year.

Procurement Programme

Mr. Key: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what meetings he has had with defence contractors and their employees to discuss the procurement programme. [34908]

Mr. Arbuthnot: My right hon. Friend and I have frequent meetings with defence contractors and take the opportunity of visiting the many excellent UK companies that support the armed forces, such as Pains Wessex in my hon Friend's constituency, which I visited last week.

Mr. Key: We were grateful for my hon. Friend's visit to that important company in my constituency. Will he bear in mind that there are some 400,000 jobs in the defence manufacturing industry and that, apart from providing the best possible equipment for the best services in the world, those jobs depend on our export market, not least to our important friends and allies such as Saudi Arabia and many other countries around the world?

Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend is right: we are doing well in defence exports. We do not want our defence exports to be stifled by the dead hand of regulation and we do not need defence diversification agencies, such as would be imposed by the Labour party. For example, Pains Wessex—the company that I visited recently—has been diversifying and, over the past few years, it has reduced its dependency on defence from 70 per cent. to 50 per cent. yet, at the same time, its defence business has grown.

Mr. Jamieson: In the Minister's discussions with defence contractors, has he considered the possibility of the United States Government going to war and commandeering the assets of United States companies, which would include the assets of the Devonport dockyard? Those assets could be used for the war effort of the United States against the will of the British Government.

Mr. Arbuthnot: No, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Mark Robinson: Will my hon. Friend assure hon. Members that he is doing everything in his power to promote British exports overseas, particularly the excellent EH101 helicopter, which is now flying and has great potential in the export market?

Mr. Arbuthnot: Yes, it is an excellent helicopter, and I take every opportunity to tell people how excellent it is. The Government, in conjunction with Italy, have spent a great deal of money to develop one of the best medium helicopters in the world. I thank my hon. Friend for his support in this regard.

Armed Forces (Overstretch)

Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent assessment he has made of the extent of overstretch in the armed forces. [34910]

Mr. Soames: The armed forces are working extremely hard to meet their operational and training tasks. I am confident that our armed forces are robustly configured, well equipped and well able to meet their varied commitments around the world.

Mr. Cunningham: British forces are overstretched throughout the world. Will the Minister explain why there is a shortfall of 4,000 men in the armed forces? Will he also explain the Government's incompetent handling of our defence forces?

Mr. Soames: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman mastered the brief that he was given. He asked why there is a shortfall of 4,000 men. There are many reasons, which I rehearse at every Defence questions, and I do not propose to go through them again. We believe that we handle defence matters very well, and many Governments abroad share our belief. That is marked out, for example, by the decision of the French Government to remodel their forces entirely on the English model.

Mr. Gallie: Does my hon. Friend agree that search and surveillance are of the utmost importance to our defence industry? On that basis, what plans does he have to upgrade the maritime patrol aircraft?

Mr. Soames: Yes, I agree that they are important matters. The Government hope that the discussions will come to a conclusion shortly.

Land Mine Policy

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect on domestic production of his Department's land mine policy. [34911]

Mr. Arbuthnot: My Department's land mine policy will have no significant effect on domestic production.

Mr. Ainsworth: Will the Minister confirm that he intends to modernise Britain's stockpile of anti-personnel mines? It does not matter whether he does that by creating a domestic capacity or by purchase from abroad, it will run counter to his stated policy of discouraging the production and use of land mines worldwide. Is not this a case of the Government saying one thing and doing another?

Mr. Arbuthnot: We have taken no decision to modernise the stockpile. If—contrary to our wish for a global ban on land mines—it becomes necessary to modernise the stockpile, we will take that decision later. In those circumstances, it would be better if we had land mines that self-destruct and therefore are of less danger to civilians, instead of the land mines that we have at present that do not.

Mr. Fabricant: While I recognise that the sale of non-self-destructing land mines is an evil, is it not the case that our exports of arms is 19 per cent. of the world market?
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire is on his feet.

Mr. Fabricant: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Is it not also the case that Britain is second only to America in exporting arms? Does my hon. Friend agree that the comments of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) about hospitality—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

Madam Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are British parliamentarians and should be respected as such, not treated as Roman gladiators. Does not the House agree? Carry on.

Mr. Fabricant: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for enabling me to ask the longest question I have ever asked. Does my hon. Friend agree that the comments made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West about hospitality demonstrated that the Labour party has no interest in jobs and that that is just one of the new dangers of new Labour?

Mr. Arbuthnot: I agree.

Bosnia

Mr. Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who made the decision that certain land in Bosnia could be used for target practice by UK forces. [34912]

Mr. Soames: The land to which the hon. Member refers is being used as a range for essential training of all troop contributors under an agreement between the implementation force and the local Bosnian Croat authorities.

Mr. Simpson: Can the Minister confirm that the land around Glamoc is a plateau that used to be occupied by Serbian villagers but was cleared by Croats? Does he feel that there is something obscene about peacekeeping forces using such cleared lands for target practice and further exploiting land that has been war-torn and divided enough?

Mr. Soames: No, I cannot possibly agree with the hon. Gentleman's assertion. Public safety on firing ranges, wherever they are, is a matter for highest priority. The troops are undergoing essential training to enable them to carry out their mission which, as I am sure the whole House will agree, has been an extraordinary and exceptional triumph.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Donald Anderson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July. [34927]

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Anderson: Does the Prime Minister agree that one part of the historic greatness of President Mandela is that he is prepared to forgive and forget the collusion of the Tory Government at the time of apartheid because he knew that, in his struggle against an evil system, he had the overwhelming support of the British people?

The Prime Minister: President Mandela is a very welcome guest to the United Kingdom as President of the Republic of South Africa and I look forward to my talks with him tomorrow. I enjoyed my visit to South Africa and our discussions then, and I have no doubt that the President will be given a warm and friendly reception in this country by everyone he meets.

Mr. Bellingham: Is the Prime Minister aware that the headmaster of the London Oratory school in Fulham—a school well known for its ability to attract the brightest pupils from all over London—recently said that, if Labour won the election, he would consider taking his school private? What advice does the Prime Minister have for parents of children at the school, apart from the obvious advice to vote Conservative?

The Prime Minister: All parents at every school will be concerned about the quality of education in their school, and I am sure that that also applies to the London Oratory.

Mr. Blair: Given the Chancellor's admission today that there will be an extra £12 billion of borrowing this year and next—double last year's forecast—what is the Prime Minister's explanation for the appalling state of the public's finances?

The Prime Minister: I find the right hon. Gentleman's question astonishing. If he had read the economic forecasts this morning, he would have read of better economic prospects in this country than in any country across the European Union, and better economic prospects than we have known for many years. Those prospects could not have been obtained other than by following the policies that we have followed in recent years.

Mr. Blair: When the Prime Minister reads out his list of statistics, perhaps he will also confirm that Britain has a higher inflation rate than many of its main competitors—it has higher interest rates than France, Germany, the United States or Japan—and that it is the only country anywhere in the European Union, apart from Spain, to be running a trade deficit, despite the 20 per cent. devaluation of the pound. Will the Prime Minister confirm that he promised that he would cut public sector debt, but that it has doubled under his stewardship of the public finances, and that we now spend £25 billion a year servicing that debt—more than on law and order and more than on defence?

The Prime Minister: I think that everyone in the House will wonder why, on every conceivable occasion, the right hon. Gentleman wants to run down the country's performance. I shall tell him what is happening: we have the lowest levels of inflation for 50 years—an achievement never remotely matched by any Labour Government—the lowest mortgage rates for 30 years, four years of falling unemployment and growing employment, and the lowest basic rate of tax for 50 years. Furthermore, the debt ratio is lower than it was in 1979—unlike in France, Germany and every other G7 country. That is the impact of the Government's policies since 1979, and it is unmatched by anything that the Labour party ever remotely achieved in office.

Mr. Blair: Madam Speaker, he does not deny a single fact that was put to him: that his forecasts have been wrong or that job creation and employment growth over the past 10 years have been lower in Britain than in any of the 10 main world economies. No Government—Labour or Conservative—have ever had £120 billion in North sea oil and squandered it or sold off every asset that the public owned and blown the money. Is it not true that, having promised that he would cut tax, he raised it; and having promised that he would cut borrowing, he raised it? Is not the lesson that, just as the Tories are untrustworthy and incompetent over tax, they are untrustworthy and incompetent over the state of the nation's finances?

The Prime Minister: I note—as will people here and abroad—the way in which, on every conceivable occasion, the Leader of the Opposition tries to sell this country short. I remind him that the economy is in the fifth successive year of sustainable growth. Since the last election, we have enjoyed the strongest recovery of any major European country.
As for forecasts, the right hon. Gentleman sits next to the shadow Chancellor: the man who cannot say whether interest rates are too high or too low, or whether inflation is too high or too low, and who famously predicted in 1992 that unemployment would go up month after month after month. Since that time, unemployment has fallen month after month after month. The right hon. Gentleman should stop living in a world of his own and see that this country is leading Europe economically and regaining its place among the strong economic and industrial nations of the world.

Sir Irvine Patnick: As my right hon. Friend will be aware, in Sheffield yesterday a Yorkshire and Humberside regional assembly was set up. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the role of councils is to look after local interests and not to set up offices in Brussels or create regional assemblies?

The Prime Minister: I see no justification for regional assemblies and more bureaucracy. That may be the policy of the Labour party, but it is neither the wish of the electorate nor the policy of the Government.

Mr. Ashdown: The day after it appears that ethnic cleansing has come once again to Northern Ireland, will the Prime Minister emphasise to all he sees that those who wish to widen conflict only serve the purposes of the IRA and help those who wish to revert to violence rather than peace?

The Prime Minister: I hope that the whole House will join me in condemning the scenes of violence that we have observed across Northern Ireland in the past couple of days. They are indefensible. The search for peace in Northern Ireland will not be assisted by such behaviour, but it could well be put back. In my judgment, that is emphatically not the wish of the people of Northern Ireland. At the moment, we need dialogue to ensure that we can move forward from the present situation, which is doing nothing but causing misery, hardship and damage. We need that dialogue speedily so that a resolution can be reached without delay.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the police, the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and the Benefits Agency in Lancaster on a combined operation which has netted tens of thousands, if not millions, of pounds in fraudulent benefit claims? Those people are now saving the taxpayer huge sums that can be devoted to proper causes.

The Prime Minister: I willingly congratulate those involved in that development. Perhaps I might add the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, who has put in place the most comprehensive anti-fraud devices in the social security system that we have had at any stage.

Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July. [34928]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. McKelvey: Can the Prime Minister explain to the House why this country is up to its neck in debt? The national debt is £320 billion and the public sector borrowing requirement is £30 million, yet the same team can turn the Tory party debt of £17 million two years ago into a £20 million profit this year. Where did they get the money, and will they publish their accounts?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman talks about the same team. Since I became Prime Minister, the national debt has averaged 44 per cent. of gross domestic product. Under the previous Labour Government, it was 62 per cent. of GDP.

European Union

Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the Union's relations with those west European states which decided not to join the Union. [34929]

The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so.

Sir Teddy Taylor: As the remaining three nations outside the EU have very low unemployment—around 4 per cent. compared with the tragic and growing unemployment of around 20 million within the European Union, largely as a result of lunatic Brussels policies—will the Prime Minister, who has, happily, excluded Britain from some of the Euro-mess to the advantage of the nation and its people, ask the European Union at the intergovernmental conference to have another think about the future, especially in view of the nightmare of unemployment being created within the European Union which no one seems to want to talk about?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right about unemployment across the European Union, which is more than 18 million. There is no doubt that the primary responsibility of Governments across Europe is to try to create the conditions in which unemployment can fall and new jobs can be created. As my hon. Friend knows, I have always argued that the way in which to reduce unemployment in Europe is through the supply-side policies we have followed in this country, which are aimed at increasing the ability of companies to compete and to create new jobs.
Figures that will be published later today will show comprehensively that Britain is continuing to attract record inward investment. I very much welcome that, and it has helped to create many jobs. As my hon. Friend says, it would be utterly wrong to attempt to impose any kind of European social model, adding extra costs to employers and, as a direct result of that, condemning more people in Europe to remain unemployed. That is the wrong way in which to get people back to work.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that this is a closed question. I call Mr. Stott.

Mr. Stott: Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether he believes that one of Her Majesty's loyal chief constables had the right—

Madam Speaker: Order. I warned the hon. Gentleman, who should have read the Order Paper, that this was a closed question.

Mr. Spearing: Norway was one of the countries that recently chose not to join the European Union. Is the Prime Minister aware that most of the top politicians, financiers and industrialists said that there would be dire consequences for Norway if it did not join? Does he agree that most of the indicators have shown that, far from being disadvantageous, it has been in Norway's interest not to join? In view of that fact, what credit can we give most of the top politicians, financiers and industrialists in this country who are urging us to join economic and monetary union?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is comparing two separate things: first, whether Norway should join the European Union and, secondly, a particular subsequent development that may or may not take place in the European Union. If he sought the views of those in the United Kingdom who trade with Europe, he would find that surveys of leading business men have consistently shown that more than 90 per cent. favour membership of the European Union and do not see the European Union simply as a trading area. Each country must make its own judgments. Norway made its judgment, and we must respect that judgment, but it would be intolerable for the United Kingdom to be outside the European Union, in practice affected by its legislation but unable to have any say in framing it.

Engagements

Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July. [34930]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Evans: My right hon. Friend will know of the importance of defence manufacturing in the north-west. Does he agree that—as thousands of employees in the industry await the contract for the replacement of maritime reconnaissance aircraft, among others—if we took the road to ruin and cut defence expenditure by £4.5 billion, as suggested by the Labour party, our action would devastate the industry in the north-west and cost thousands of skilled manufacturing jobs? Is this not yet another example of new Labour, new danger?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his case very persuasively. Another £4.5 billion off defence—which is what the shadow Chancellor would like—would indeed have dramatic effects on the capacity of the armed forces to undertake their role. As for contracts, as I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, a decision will be announced as soon as we have completed our assessment of the bids for the replacement of various pieces of equipment that are now due for replacement. I hope that we shall be able to make announcements before too long, but a wide range of factors remain to be considered.

Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 July. [34931]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Michie: Will the Prime Minister join me—along with, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner)—in sending heartfelt concern to the families of those who were injured during the dreadful attack on the Wolverhampton school? Will he assure the House that he will do everything possible to give our children the protection that they richly deserve?

The Prime Minister: The whole House will have been appalled by the incident at St. Luke's school, and I have no doubt that everyone in the House and beyond will wish to send sympathy to the victims of that attack and hopes for their speedy recovery. The hon. Gentleman's sentiments will be shared not only by the Government but by everyone in the House, and I shall ensure that they are carried into effect.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

IMMIGRATION RULES

That the Statement of Changes in the Immigration Rules (House of Commons Paper No. 329), which was laid before this House on 2nd April, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.

LANDFILL TAX

That the Landfill Tax (Contaminated Land) Order 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 1529) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.

That the Landfill Tax Regulations 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 1527) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Wells.]

Question agreed to.

Constitutional Change (Referendums)

Mr. David Shaw: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision in respect of referendums to be held throughout the United Kingdom when constitutional change affecting one part of the United Kingdom is proposed.
My Bill gives Scottish, Welsh and English Labour Members of Parliament their first opportunity to back or reject the Labour leader's latest new idea—that at least two questions are needed in any referendum on Scottish devolution. He was forced to concede the need for two questions in any referendum by the success of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland's campaign on the tartan tax.
That campaign has brought home to Scotland the dangers of such a tax. My right hon. Friend has demonstrated that Scotland would lose jobs and investment if it had to pay for devolution through a tartan tax, and has single-handedly forced the Labour leader to accept that Scots do not want to pay higher taxes than English people. The Labour leader has had to retreat, and I believe that my Bill demonstrates the ludicrous nature of his and Labour's current position.
I do not want my Bill to be implemented, because I believe in the Union; but I would like it to be discussed by Labour, Liberal, Conservative, Scottish nationalist and Welsh nationalist Members of Parliament in Committee, so that the ridiculousness of the Labour leader's proposals can be exposed in debate.
My Bill shows the British people why new Labour means new dangers, but, if Labour Members really have confidence in the two-question referendum, my Bill offers them the opportunity to vote for their leader's policy today. I suspect that Labour Members will not vote for their leader's policy, because it has been criticised by Labour Members, Liberal Members and Scottish Constitutional Convention members. Even the political editor of The Scotsman complained about being misled by Labour.
Under any Bill on Scottish devolution, a three-month timetable would be impossible. My Bill would, for example, promote a proper discussion of the issues, instead of a complete fraud on the United Kingdom electorates, who are being told that the issues are so simple that 300 years of union can be broken in three months, and that 85 per cent. of the people affected will not be given a say or a vote.
My Bill is contingent on a decision being made by any future Government to hold referendums on Scottish and Welsh assemblies. I hope that that will never happen. However, my Bill would ensure that, in the event of a referendum in Wales or Scotland on constitutional changes, those changes would also be put in referendums to English people for their views. My Bill does not provide for an English Parliament or for English regional assemblies, as we in England know that such bodies are unpopular, unnecessary and a complete waste of money, and would damage jobs and inward investment.
My Bill envisages that at least five questions in each of two referendums would be needed in each country. Why does the Labour party think that there should be only two questions? I hope that it can count further than two, because


the implications of devolution are much more important than the two simple questions that the Labour leader has proposed. Additional questions undoubtedly need to be asked. The first two questions are clear: "Do you want a Scottish assembly?" and "Are you prepared to pay a 3 per cent. tartan tax that might have to go higher than 3 per cent?", but there are three other important questions.
If a Scottish Assembly comes into existence, should Scottish Members have the same rights at Westminster as English Members—the West Lothian question, as it is being put by the Member who represents West Lothian, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). If a Scottish Assembly comes into existence, should the number of Scottish Members at Westminster be reduced from 72 to 55? If a Scottish Assembly comes into existence, should the public expenditure allocation formula be the same per head of population for all parts of the UK? [Interruption.] I hear many hon. Members saying that, yes, those three questions need to be put, as well as the other two questions. Those three questions should be put to English voters, as well as to Scottish and Welsh voters.
My Bill then deals with the eligibility to vote—it makes provision for who may vote in the referendum. Here I have to ask a personal a question of the House. Why should my Scottish wife, who was born in Scotland and who maintains strong family connections with Scotland, be banned from voting in any referendum in Scotland, whereas an Englishman resident in Scotland for a short period would be entitled to a vote? It would be ludicrous not to allow Scottish people living in England, in Europe and in other countries a vote.
My Bill would provide for fully costed proposals. The Government of the day who initiate the referendums would have to have those proposals costed and approved by the National Audit Office, and passed by the UK Parliament as appropriate for public consultation. There would also be discussion in a Special Standing Committee. How often I have heard Labour Members say that they want Special Standing Committees to hear witnesses and to take evidence before their Bills are considered in the House of Commons. Why should there not be a Special Standing Committee to consider any proposal for referendums in the UK, or any proposals for devolution?
The proposals would have to be formulated in detail, so that the consultation could take place properly. There would have to be detailed discussion of the powers that the Scottish Assembly would have in relation to local authorities. Scottish, Welsh and English local authorities would need to be consulted in the context of the consultation document that would have to be issued by the Special Standing Committee.
The Bill would enable all local authorities to face those problems, and would make English Labour Members think about the implications for their constituencies and local authorities of devolution policies and constitutional change. Scottish local authorities would have to face the inevitable tensions that would arise between them and a Scottish Assembly that would seek to control their purse strings and exert a squeeze on cash.
Labour Members tell us that they want consultation. Let them provide for that in any changes they propose for a Scottish Assembly. The Bill would provide an

independent body to oversee such referendums, and would allocate finance for "Yes" and "No" campaigns. The five key questions must be properly put, in a referendum that covers the whole of the United Kingdom. It is essential for everybody in the United Kingdom to have an opportunity to express a view on any changes in the United Kingdom.
The Bill would enable English, Scottish and Welsh Labour Members to face the problems of devolution. I am offering an opportunity to Labour Members to decide whether they want to back their leader by voting to make his policy their policy. Under the Bill, they would have to face all the problems associated with any devolution proposals.

Mr. Alex Salmond: There is a temptation to ignore the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), but in view of some of the issues that he has raised, his Bill should be opposed. It represents an unexpected development in enthusiasm in the Conservative party for referendums and constitutional change. After all, the Conservatives have been in government for 17 years, and there have been many proposals for a constitutional referendum in Scotland. However, until now, there has been a distinct lack of support in the Conservative party for such proposals.
Scotland has had a stomachful of rigged referendums. In recent history—in 1979—there was a referendum in Scotland which had in it a 40 per cent. rule, a device so undemocratic that it has no precedent in developed European democracies. If it had been employed in France, that country would never have signed the Maastricht treaty; if it had been applied in Greenland, that country would still be part of the European Union. If it had been used in American presidential elections, not a single President would have been elected this century. If the 40 per cent. rule had been employed in United Kingdom elections, we would not have had a Government elected for the past 30 years. That is probably the best argument for having such a rule.
The hon. Member for Dover should understand that, after the rigged referendum in 1979, there is no enthusiasm in Scotland for going through the process again. The rigging that the hon. Gentleman proposes is to apply the referendum not just in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom. In 1991, when the Baltic states were having referendums on independence, some of the last-ditch apparatchiks of the old Soviet Union argued that the referendums should apply throughout the Soviet Union. International opinion, and even the Conservative party laughed that out of court as a totally undemocratic device.
It is argued that devolution is a matter for the whole of the United Kingdom, but the hon. Member's case fails, because he believes that independence is affected by the same argument. Independence is a matter not for Scots but for those who live in Scotland and have a stake and an interest in the country. Devolution is entirely different.
The hon. Member for Dover looks confused, so perhaps I can explain it to him. If he wanted to change the rules of Dover bowling club, he would go along to the annual meeting and try to convince a majority of other members. That is like devolution. However, if he wanted to leave Dover bowling club, he would simply tear up his


membership card, because that is a matter for him and him alone. The hon. Gentleman should learn to distinguish between devolution and independence.
Some argue that it is up to the people of Scotland to propose devolution, and for the House to take a view on it. Until recently, that view was generally held in Scotland.
However, over the past few years, there was some agreement in Scotland that, if we were to have another referendum, it would have to be a genuine referendum and to contain all the options for constitutional change on the ballot paper. Although that position was opposed in the previous Parliament by the Labour party, it was adopted immediately after the last election by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who was then leader of the Labour party in Scotland.
The House should understand that, in Scotland, there is not a majority in favour of devolution. The various opinions in Scotland are balanced. It is true that the smallest body of opinion supports no change at all. The most recent opinion poll on this matter was in The Scotsman last month, and showed that 44 per cent. of the population were for devolution, that 33 per cent. were for independence, and that 20 per cent. were for the position favoured by the hon. Member for Dover, which is no change at all. If we are to have another referendum in Scotland, all those three options must be on the ballot paper and available for people to choose.
People in Scotland are not interested in a rigged referendum—such as that proposed by the hon. Member for Dover, or that proposed by the leader of the Labour party, which excludes independence from the ballot paper. If we have a referendum, let us have a genuine one, with all the options available.
Over the past few years, there was some agreement in Scotland on the issue of Scottish sovereignty. The agreement was that, whatever our constitutional future might be, Scots had the right to determine that future. That was the agreement that the opposition parties signed in a democracy declaration in front of 25,000 Scots at the European summit in December 1992.
The Labour party has reneged on that concept, and replaced Scottish sovereignty with Blair sovereignty. But many of us in Scotland are still interested in and will argue for it. We resent Scottish politics, the claim on Scotland and our nation's constitutional future being used as a plaything in this House or in the politics of England.
The hon. Member for Dover was entirely wrong when he argued that the change in Labour's position was due to the campaign waged by the Secretary of State for Scotland. The change in Labour's position was caused by the Prime Minister's campaign in middle England—his thumping-the-Union-Jack campaign, fighting on an anti-Frog, anti-Scottish platform and wrapping himself in the flag. As The Guardian said last Monday:
Sources close to the Labour leader said his tough stance on devolution will play well in the home counties.
It does not matter whether it is the Prime Minister fighting his little England campaign, the Labour party leader fighting his middle England campaign, or the hon. Member for Dover with his southern England perspective: people in Scotland want the case for their constitutional future to be debated and decided in Scotland on its own merits. In Scotland, we will determine that future—without the help or interference of the hon. Member for Dover. That is why I ask the House to reject this Bill.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 12, Noes 139.

Division No. 180]
[3.47 pm


AYES


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Bendall, Vivian
Thomason, Roy


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Whittingdale, John



Wilkinson, John


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Wilshire, David


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)



Nicholls, Patrick
Tellers for the Ayes:


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Mr. John Marshall and Mr. Graham Riddick.


Shaw, David (Dover)





NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Heppell, John


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Alton, David
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Hinchliffe, David


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Barron, Kevin
Home Robertson, John


Bayley, Hugh
Hood, Jimmy


Beggs, Roy
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Byers, Stephen
Hutton, John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Illsley, Eric


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Campbell-Savours, D N
Jenkins, Brian (SE Staffs)


Canavan, Dennis
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Cann, Jamie
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Chidgey, David
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Clapham, Michael
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Khabra, Piara S


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Kirkwood, Archy


Connarty, Michael
Lewis, Terry


Corbyn, Jeremy
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Corston, Jean
Llwyd, Elfyn


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Loyden, Eddie


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Cunningham, Roseanna
McAllion, John


Dafis, Cynog
McAvoy, Thomas


Davidson, Ian
McFall, John


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
McKelvey, William


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Dewar, Donald
McNamara, Kevin


Dobson, Frank
MacShane, Denis


Donohoe, Brian H
Mahon, Alice


Eastham, Ken
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Etherington, Bill
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Faulds, Andrew
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Flynn, Paul
Martlew, Eric


Foster, Don (Bath)
Meale, Alan


Foulkes, George
Michael, Alun


Fyfe, Maria
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Galbraith, Sam
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Gapes, Mike
Miller, Andrew


Godman, Dr Norman A
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Morgan, Rhodri


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Morley, Elliot


Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Gunnell, John
Mullin, Chris


Hain, Peter
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hall, Mike
Olner, Bill


Hanson, David
Pike, Peter L


Harvey, Nick
Pope, Greg






Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Radice, Giles
Touhig, Don


Rendel, David
Trickett, Jon


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Tyler, Paul


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Wallace, James


Rooney, Terry
Walley, Joan


Salmond, Alex
Wareing, Robert N



Wigley, Dafydd


Sheerman, Barry
Winnick, David


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wray, Jimmy


Skinner, Dennis
Wright, Dr Tony


Soley, Clive
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Spellar, John



Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Tellers for the Noes:


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Mrs. Margaret Ewing and Mr. Andrew Welsh.


Steinberg, Gerry

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May we have a rerun of that vote, as it is clear that many Labour Members were unaware that they were voting against their leader's policy on referendums in Scotland and Wales?

Madam Speaker: That is a matter for argument, not a point of order.

Opposition Day

[18TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Water Metering

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Frank Dobson: I beg to move,
That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to abandon its hidden agenda to force water metering on every household, which would prove expensive, unjust, dangerous to health and the least cost-effective way of protecting the environment.
The Tory Government want to force every family in the land to install water meters. They will not put that proposal in their manifesto for the general election, but it is on their secret agenda. The water regulator the Government appointed is even worse. He is obsessed with promoting water metering for domestic customers. He seldom misses an opportunity to push water metering.
Yet the drive to force everyone in the country to have a meter flies in the face of common sense.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): The hon. Gentleman has made an allegation which is entirely untrue. The Government do not wish to force people to have water meters. We are opposed to compulsory water metering. The Government have no intention of introducing it. Will he please withdraw the terms of his motion and the proposition that he has put forward, as it is entirely untrue?

Mr. Dobson: The answer to that is no, I will not.
Compulsory water metering cannot be justified, on economic, social or environmental grounds. That is why it is opposed by the Labour party.

Sir Anthony Grant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson: No. I think I am entitled to reach at least the second page of my speech, let alone the second paragraph.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. If someone unwittingly tells an untruth, is told that it is a lie and then refuses to withdraw it, is that not an outrage—

Madam Speaker: Order. It is part of the debate in a democratic society—the cut and thrust of debate. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would understand that by now.

Mr. Dobson: Compulsory metering is opposed not only by the Labour party but by such diverse organisations as the Consumers Association, the British Medical Association and the Save the Children Fund. More important still, it is opposed by the vast majority of people in Britain, and how right they are.

Sir Anthony Grant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not give way.
Everyone accepts the need to save water, to restrain the growth in demand and to make sure that our use of water is environmentally sustainable, but that does not mean that everyone should be forced to have a water meter. There are other ways of saving water and reducing demand. We believe that the alternatives to water metering would give better value for money, would have a quicker impact, would be more equitable, and would be less of a threat to public health.
Forcing everyone to have a water meter is a course that is being promoted by people who are so hooked on metering that they will not listen to reason. They do not seem to care about the expense and bother. They ignore the social consequences. They exaggerate the impact of metering on overall water consumption. They dismiss and cheaper ways of protecting the environment.
Let us start with the costs. Estimates of the costs of installing water meters vary. Actual costs of installing them also vary. They can be relatively cheap to install as part of a new house on a new estate. Installing them in existing houses can be very expensive. It is as well to remember that new houses form only a small addition to the housing stock each year, so most water meters would have to be installed in existing houses. Thus the process of installation would be more complex and expensive, and would take many years.
The latest official cost figures range from £165 to more than £200 per meter bought and installed. The total number of households which have a water meter at present is about 21.8 million, so the total initial cost to the nation could be as much as £4 billion or more to install water meters. It is hard to believe that the installation of meters is the best environmental use of that sort of money.

Mr. Gummer: But as I have said that I am opposed to the compulsory use of water metering, because it would be expensive and as we would not do it, why is the hon. Gentleman pretending that anyone would do it? Is it not the fact that he could think of nothing else to debate, so he decided to debate an entirely fictitious motion against a Government who have no intention whatever of doing what he says they want to do?

Mr. Dobson: The Secretary of State needs to bear it in mind that, for people living in new houses in some areas, water metering is compulsory. He has not stopped it. He has appointed as water regulator someone who says that he is in favour of compulsory water metering.

Sir Anthony Grant: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way.
If he is saying that no one wants the metering, will he explain why an independent market research exercise involving Anglian Water showed that no less than 80 per cent. of the people thought it was a good idea?

Mr. Dobson: We need to look in detail at some of the surveys carried out by those companies that favour water metering, as they have tended to adjust the outcome to suit their argument—not that that is unknown in the House of Commons.
Metering produces further costs. A metered system of water charging clearly costs much more to run than the present system. Estimates vary from £21 to £24 per meter per year, giving an extra running cost of about £500 million per year. Many people could think of better ways of spending £500 million of their money than having a more expensive system.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson: No, I will not.
There are other extra costs. A water meter lasts only about 10 years on average, after which it needs to be replaced—once again, at enormous cost and disturbance to householders. All those costs could be avoided by using other methods of charging for water; the existing methods incur none of those expenses.
The promoters of metering claim that water meters give customers an incentive to save water. But they seldom give honest answers to common-sense questions such as whether meters provide an incentive to save water, whether poor families would be hardest hit by water metering, whether saving water might hurt some families and the elderly, and, above all, whether there is a cheaper, quicker and more just way of saving water.
I shall take each of those questions in turn. If meters are to provide customers with an incentive to save water, they must first be read by those customers; secondly, they must be readable; thirdly, they must affect people's use of water. But according to a recent survey by the Consumers Association, 60 per cent. of people with water meters never read them. National meter trials showed that meter failures, including inadequate measuring, range from 18 per cent. to 29 per cent. of all meters installed—equivalent to about 7 million families a year having an inaccurate meter, if every family is to be forced to have a meter.
The installation of metering in some parts of the country has led to less water being used, at least at the outset. But even the official report of the national metering trials makes it clear that that reduction may be partly caused by the publicity surrounding the trials, and partly by the recession. The Water Companies Association said yesterday that the current evidence to the Environment Select Committee had established that metering has only a short-term impact on conservation.
It appears from the figures that, in some parts of the country, the introduction of water meters has led to an increase in demand for water. According to Ofwat, 40 per cent. of households with a meter said that it had not caused them to reduce their consumption. The recent Consumers Association survey found that only one third of those surveyed had cut their consumption, and the others had increased theirs.
It is fair to say that a large permanent drop in consumption could not be guaranteed, even by spending £4 billion on water meters. That does not mean that no families would cut their use of water. The only objective of installing water meters is to get people to use less water. Like everything else, the families with the least money will be hit first and hit hardest—that is typical of the Government's policies.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson: No, I will not.
According to the water regulator, people in houses with high rateable values, benefit—save money—through the introduction of water metering, but badly off families may be hit, and forced either to pay high bills or to reduce the water they use. The supporters of water metering want to put the squeeze on people—but not on comfortably off, professional people like themselves. Their favoured system puts the squeeze on poor people, particularly poor, large families—it does not contain a shred of justice.
The Save the Children Fund survey found that, on an estate in Essex, four out of five families on low incomes found it hard to pay their metered water bill, and were reducing the water that they used. One person affected said:
You go round smelling … you can't afford a bath. I'd like a bath each day but can't. I'm frightened in case the bill comes in too high.
Another said:
When I work my money out, I just can't do it. Is it the bill or is it feeding my kids?
Another said:
Living with two kids you worry. I pay £7 per week for his nappies. It is either the water or him go without a nappy.
Presumably Ofwat and Ministers regard those remarks as part of the success story of water metering. Most human beings would be more likely to agree with the Save the Children Fund's conclusion:
As a society, for the past 150 years in the UK, we have made a priority of access to clean water for all our citizens. Historically, it has been seen as unacceptable for families not to be able to afford water. Why has this suddenly changed …?
The Save the Children Fund is entitled to ask that question.

Mr. Gummer: It has not suddenly changed, and the Government are opposed to compulsory water metering. Why is it that the hon. Gentleman tables a motion that he knows to be untrue, and therefore implies that I have told a lie three times in the House? I have not so done. The Government are opposed to compulsory water metering. The hon. Gentleman should accept my word, as I would accept his word—and, given how silly many of his words are, he should at least be grateful when I say something sensible.

Mr. Dobson: It is not entirely by people's words that you judge them, Madam Speaker. In this country, at the moment, some families are forced to have water meters. The Minister has not lifted a finger to stop it. The water regulator, appointed by the Secretary of State or his predecessor, is in favour of compulsory water meters, and does nothing about it. Until he takes action to prevent the compulsory use of water meters, we will not believe him.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not.
The British Medical Association produced a thoughtful and authoritative report, which warned of the consequences if metering caused people to economise by reducing standards of personal and family hygiene. The report drew attention to the special needs of people who

are incontinent or suffer from psoriasis or eczema, and to the extra water needed by families with babies and older children.
I point out to Conservative Members that, if one is incontinent, if one suffers from the diseases I mentioned, or if one is a baby, one needs the extra water, no matter how much money one has. We are trying to protect those who do not have the money. The supporters of water metering offer no solution to that problem.

Mr. Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but it will be the last time, if his intervention is as daft as they usually are.

Mr. Arnold: The hon. Gentleman has spent no less than 13 minutes saying that he opposes water metering. What form of water charging does he support?

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman had better listen to my speech.
Compulsory water metering, while costing billions of pounds, may not save much water, would hit poor people hardest, and might harm their health and well-being. My final question is: is there an alternative to the trouble, expense and injustice of water metering? Is there a better way of saving water? The answer is obvious: of course there are easier, cheaper and fairer ways.
First, we must stop the water companies wasting the millions of gallons that leak every day from their pipes.

Mr. David Jamieson: Water prices since privatisation are now two and a half times as much in the south-west. I visited a new estate in my constituency where water meters have been fitted. Many of the people living there are families, and I assure my hon. Friend that metering has made a difference to them: their bills are not two and a half times as much, but three times as much.

Mr. Dobson: I am sure that that is the case. The Secretary of State is not listening. I presume that that is because he does not want to hear evidence that people have been forced to have water meters.
As everybody knows, the real water wasters are not the customers but the water companies.

Sir Anthony Grant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not.
When the Tory Government privatised the water industry, they gave it no less than £14 billion. Since then, the privatised companies have made £9.8 billion in profits and paid out dividends of more than £3 billion. Over that period, they have been a tax-free zone, paying no mainstream corporation tax, yet they have not invested in mending the leaks in their pipes. Every day, 855 million gallons of water, cleaned at the customer's expense before it leaks away, is wasted by the companies. That is more than half a million gallons a minute—four times the amount that leaks from customers' pipes.
It is therefore clear that the best way to protect the environment by saving water is for the companies to put their pipes in order rather than putting the squeeze on customers. It is not just the Labour party that says that. Last October's report, "Saving Water", issued by the National Rivers Authority, showed that cutting leaks was twice as useful as installing water meters, and that cutting leaks and installing more water-efficient household appliances are the most cost-effective ways of conserving water. It concluded that the water regulator was not doing enough to force the companies to reduce leaks from their pipes.

Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not.
So cutting leaks was top priority, and the National Rivers Authority called for the introduction of mandatory leakage targets. Yet mandatory targets have still not been introduced, because the Government and the regulator do not like them. The long-term effects of compulsory metering would not encourage the water companies to mend their leaks—quite the reverse. The introduction of compulsory metering would reduce the pressure on the water companies to cut back on leaks in their pipes.
That is not the end of the story. To charge domestic customers according to the amount of water used would give the companies an incentive to promote the sale of water. Water company takings would be related directly to the amount of water they sold, and they would have a vested interest in encouraging consumers to consume more. As a result, the drive for water conservation would become as bedevilled by the profit motive as the drive for energy conservation has been hindered because it conflicts with the financial interests of the gas and electricity industries. That would be bad for the environment.

Mr. Robert Atkins: I apologise for not being present at the beginning of the hon. Gentleman's speech, although I was listening to part of it upstairs. I was unavoidably detained. I shall try not to ask my question in a polemical way.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that it is difficult to do much about leakage. One can go only so far in restraining leakage. In those circumstances, and faced with the problem that water is a diminishing resource as the climate becomes increasingly prone to drought, how does the Labour party suggest that we convince people that water as a resource must be conserved? If the hon. Gentleman does not approve of voluntary metering, what is the alternative?

Mr. Dobson: As I told the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold)—who, as usual, made an intervention and then left the Chamber—I shall come to that point in the course of my speech.
Compulsory water metering fails the economic, social and environmental tests, yet it has been heavily promoted by some—but not many—people in the water companies. It has been promoted most of all by the Government and the water regulator, who between them have gone to enormous lengths. In order to promote metering, they rigged water privatisation; they rigged the law; they rigged the price formula; they misled the House of Commons; they hindered the water companies, which

wanted to consider other charging systems; and they played down water company leaks. At every turn, their first priority has been to promote metering.

Mr. Gummer: Will the hon. Gentleman cite a single occasion on which the Secretary of State for the Environment has promoted compulsory metering? Will he cite all the occasions on which I have said categorically that we are opposed to compulsory water metering?

Mr. Dobson: If the Secretary of State had listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), he would have heard that people have been forced to have water meters on an estate in Plymouth. That has occurred under the present law, under the present Tory Government and under the present Tory Secretary of State—and the Secretary of State has done nothing about it, because his secret agenda is to promote it.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Secretary of State for the Environment has intervened four times, and he has protested too much. We do not believe him when he says that he is not in favour of compulsory water metering. Why? Because, before the Tories were elected, they did not say that they would privatise rain, but when they got into power they did.

Mr. Dobson: My hon Friend makes a cogent point—[Interruption.] Dimmer I may be than the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant)—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. All hon. Members know my views on seated interventions. The highest standard of debate should prevail.

Mr. Dobson: I agree with you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Government Members should listen to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said. The water industry has a bad reputation because people have an instinctive feeling that the water starts off free, goes through the pipes of the companies and ends up very expensive. If Government Members do not realise that, they will not understand the public mood in this regard.

Mr. David Hanson: I advise my hon. Friend of something that the Secretary of State said in answer to a parliamentary question from the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes):
The Government believe that metering is in the long term the best basis for paying for water".[Official Report, 4 April 1995; Vol. 257, c. 1054.]

Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend has made a cogent point.
I will explain why we believe that water metering is on the Government's agenda. To put pressure on the companies to introduce meters, the Government prohibited them from basing their charges on rateable value after 2000, or from using council tax bands in England and Wales. In Scotland, council tax bands have been used. This is all part of the Government's promotion of metering.
As far as we can see, the Government and Ofwat have not done much research into alternative ways of charging, and, worse than that, they have tried to prevent the water companies from doing research into alternatives. As a


result, only one option is being promoted: metering. There is no choice for the companies or for the customers. The Government line is a paraphrase of Henry Ford: "You can have any system you like, so long as it's metering."
The Government started to rig the system in favour of metering right from the start of privatisation. They laid down a code of practice for leaks which did not mention leaks from company pipes but which gave the companies the power to force customers to repair leaks in their pipes, and to charge customers for repairing the leaks. Things got off to a bad start and, sadly, they got worse.
In 1991, the water regulator said:
I encourage water companies to develop targeted programmes for compulsory metering of domestic supplies in those places where the benefits are likely to outweigh the costs … I would not regard the phased introduction of selective compulsory metering as involving undue discrimination or preference.
The water regulator is in favour of pursuing compulsory metering.

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said about the Director General of Ofwat. Many Conservatives do not agree with the Director General of Ofwat, particularly his comments about water metering.

Mr. Dobson: I agree with the hon. Lady, and I do not agree with the director general's comments, but the Secretary of State presumably does, because he does not say anything about them.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether he is opposed to compulsory metering for people with excessive, non-essential use of water, such as sprinklers or swimming pools? Some water companies are introducing such compulsory metering, and I wish to be clear about the hon. Gentleman's position.

Mr. Dobson: That is a different matter. There is a case for metering people who use excessive amounts of water on domestic premises, but the vast bulk of people do not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] It is no good Conservative Members saying, "Ah," as if they were at the doctor's trying to show him the bottoms of their deep throats.

Mr. Gummer: rose—

Mr. Dobson: Oh, for God's sake.

Mr. Gummer: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves his attacks on the independent head of Ofwat, will he confirm that he would sack the independent head of Ofwat if he disagreed with him, and if he were in a position to do so? Or does the hon. Gentleman agree that an independent figure should run Ofwat? If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the head of Ofwat should not be independent, the House should know that, were there a Labour Government, Ofwat would have no independence, and the hon. Gentleman would decide what it should do.

Mr. Dobson: We have made it clear that we do not approve of the present regulatory system, which leaves both the customers and the managers of industries victims

of the quirky views held by individual regulators. In many cases, those views are damaging the interests of customers, and in some cases damaging the interests of companies at the same time. It is no good the Secretary of State acting like Pontius Pilate and claiming that that public official, who is in favour of compulsory meters, is nothing to do with the Government. That is unacceptable.
The Environment Act 1995, passed by the House last year, continued the disreputable tradition of putting the blame on the customers. It required each water company to promote the efficient use of water, but by its customers, not by the company itself. When my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) proposed that that requirement should also apply to the companies, her arguments were dismissed with the combination of effortless ignorance and arrogance that Environment Ministers have brought to the issue.
The regulator—the public official whom the Secretary of State apparently does not even dare to try to influence—wrote to water companies to warn them that he would monitor their promotion of metering as a way of discharging their new duties under the Environment Act 1995. He advised the companies to promote metering in press releases and in other dealings with the local media. He even suggested that the companies should try to use organisations representing elderly people as a front for installing meters, because—I quote the regulator—
customers distrust the company's intentions if they are approached directly".
He is not kidding about that.
This year, the regulator told three companies to improve what he called "their meter options" to comply with his interpretation of the law. One was the York Waterworks Company, which supplied water to people in the middle of Yorkshire when Yorkshire Water, which covers the area surrounding York, failed to do so, but the regulator did not chide Yorkshire Water about anything. As recently as June this year, the regulator obliged companies to consider—I ask the House to listen carefully—water restrictions on unmetered customers to avoid cuts in supplies to metered customers. It is part of his drive to force us to have meters.
The regulator has rigged the water price formula, beginning with the startling decision that the cost of installing meters should fall not upon the customers who get the meters, but upon those who do not have meters. He also came to the extraordinary conclusion that the fixed cost element of the charge to unmetered customers should be higher than that for metered customers. He said that it would be short-sighted to include in the fixed cost to metered customers items such as the cost of reservoirs, treatment plants, mains sewers and sewage treatment plants. Apparently that did not go far enough, so in March 1994, he ordered the companies to reduce further the standing charges for metered customers.
The regulator was still at it in May this year, saying that he would press for further reductions in the standing charges for metered customers—which would be met at the expense of unmetered customers. As a result, average water bills in England and Wales for customers on unmeasured supplies have risen by 39 per cent. in real terms since privatisation. In the same period, water bills for customers using water meters have fallen by 2 per cent. in real terms. In the words of the Consumers Association, it means


that consumers who are still paying for their water by the old rateable value system are now effectively subsidising metered customers".

Sir Anthony Grant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not.
The water regulator's promotion of metering at the expense of non-metered customers is so excessive that I believe that he may be breaking the law. In 1991, he said:
charges must broadly reflect the costs of providing water and sewage services to particular customers".
That is the reverse of his present policy of loading the cost of meters on to non-metered users. Case law in the electricity industry makes it clear that excessive action, even to achieve a legitimate aim, can be unlawful, and that it is lawful to require an occupier to contribute to the greater capital and maintenance costs incurred in serving his or her premises. Yet the costs incurred in serving the premises of metered customers are being loaded on everyone else.
It seems to me that, if it is lawful to load customers, it may be unlawful to unload them. Even if it is not unlawful, it is certainly unfair, and an abuse of the regulator's discretion. It cannot be right to charge unmetered customers but not metered customers for the cost of installing meters.
The water regulator is not alone in his obsessive pursuit of compulsory water metering: Ministers have been at it as well. They have tried to promote metering at every opportunity, no matter how far they strayed from the truth.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough has devoted much effort to explaining the shortcomings of compulsory metering. She knows a great deal about the subject, as she will demonstrate when she winds up tonight for the Opposition. She was duly denounced by the right hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins)— I warned him that I intended to mention him—then an Environment Minister, on 15 February 1995. He said that she had conducted an
obsessive campaign against water metering
and delivered the following magisterial ministerial statement:
I would like the House to know the facts. First, most of the water leakage comes from domestic pipes, not company pipes … the increased incidence of metering will help to solve the problems of leakage."—[Official Report, 15 February 1995; Vol. 254, c. 983.]
The only problem with that magisterial statement is that it is the reverse of the truth. I do not know whether the Minister knew the truth—he certainly should have, as should the Secretary of State and his officials. The Secretary of State was sitting next to the Minister on the Front Bench, but he did not tap him on the shoulder and tell him that he was wrong. None of the officials passed notes to the Minister—I checked that when I watched the video earlier today.
No one corrected the Minister's statement, until February this year, when the Secretary of State finally admitted, in a written answer to me, that the answer had misled the House. He added later that it was no more than a slip. We all make slips—I am as guilty as anyone—but it was a very convenient one. It was such a large slip that it might be described as a slide. It furthered the promotion of water metering, and it went uncorrected for a whole year.
The official promotion of water metering did not end there. My hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough promoted a private Member's Bill to set mandatory leakage targets for water companies. It had all-party support, and was also supported by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health. What happened? The water regulator, ever willing to take an opportunity to do down any other way of saving water and to promote metering, issued a press statement headed "Mandatory leakage targets will mean higher customer bills." That was designed to coincide with the Bill, and to discredit it.
The press release also included the claim, which was being peddled at the time by Ministers and water companies, that the companies were pledged to spend £4 billion on reducing leaks. That was, to say the least, a bit of an exaggeration. The real figure being spent that year on identifying and mending leaks was £65 million, just 1.6 per cent. of the total referred to so favourably by the regulator and the Government.
All those statements were, of course, made in pursuit of the holy grail of water metering. All that shows how water metering has been promoted by the Government and the regulator. It is also promoted by some in the water industry, but the Water Services Association went on record in September 1994 as saying that compulsory metering was
an untenable option
because of
the cost, impracticality and effect on customers' bills".
Despite all the efforts of the promoters of metering, who stick to their dubious economic theories in the face of all the evidence, we find that compulsory water metering has no good in it. It would be wildly expensive, costing as much as £4 billion to install, £500 million a year to run and further billions in replacement costs every decade. Surely the country has better things to do with that money.
On top of that, it is not at all clear that charging people for the amount of water they use would save much water. Badly off families, however, would find it hard to pay the bills and would start to reduce their water use, which could harm their health. Saving water by cutting company leaks would do much more for environmental sustainability, and would come into action more quickly.
Other measures could reduce domestic water consumption. More effort should be put into promoting more water-efficient household appliances, such as washing machines and dishwashers. The building regulations and water byelaws could be changed to reduce water wastage. That could have been done in the Housing Bill or the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill which have recently gone through this House.
Was that opportunity taken? No, it was not. Little or no effort has gone into those sensible ideas. Everything has been subordinated to the drive to promote water metering. The water companies could also be required to provide domestic customers with a free service to detect and mend leaks on their premises, but that has been ruled out.
This Government are mad keen on tests, but they will not accept that compulsory metering fails the economic test, the social test and the environmental test. The Labour party is campaigning on this issue to expose the


Government's secret agenda and to stop the metering madness. We shall be supported in that by all sorts of organisations, but above all, we shall be supported by the people of this country.
In 1991, the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys found that 54 per cent. of the public were opposed to compulsory metering. In 1992, a survey carried out for the regulator showed that 82 per cent. of water customers were satisfied with the existing method of charging. Half believed that the money they paid into the companies should be spent not on metering but on replacing old water mains and sewage pipes.
By the autumn of last year, opposition to metering had risen to 67 per cent., and 87 per cent. said that the companies should do more to cut the leaks. In March this year, a survey for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds found 69 per cent. saying that the best way in which to save water was to set mandatory targets to reduce leaks.
This month, the Consumers Association published a survey which stated that 87 per cent. believed that everyone should have equal access to water whatever their income, which is incompatible with compulsory metering. Perhaps that view was a result of the regulator's efforts to drive down the cost of water to the 8 per cent. minority who are meter users, at the expense of the 92 per cent. who are not.
I am confident that, as the months go by, more and more people will see the common sense of our opposition to compulsory water metering, because it is expensive, unfair, wasteful and harmful to the environment.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson: No.
The Secretary of State is welcome to promote his hidden agenda, but I cannot believe that many Tory Members will be happy to join him tonight. Opposition Members willingly vote against compulsory water metering, because it is expensive, unjust—

Mr. Arnold: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) will not give way; the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) must resume his seat.

Mr. Arnold: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) promised to answer my question, and tell us what alternative charges he would devise. He has not yet done so, and he has nearly finished his speech.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that that is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Dobson: If the hon. Gentleman had stayed in the Chamber, he might have been in a position to comment.
As I was saying, Opposition Members willingly vote against compulsory water metering, because it is expensive, unjust, ineffective and harmful to the environment. What we do will be right, proper and popular.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'notes that Her Majesty's Government is committed to sustainable development and recently published an assessment of global warming in the United Kingdom with its sharp reminder of the increasing pressure on water resources; further notes that the increasing demand for water therefore requires a long-term approach to the management of water resources and that an important part of that task is to discourage unnecessary wastage of water both by companies and by customers; therefore welcomes the new duty on water companies to promote the efficient use of water and, although the Government has never supported a policy of compulsory metering, notes that metering can also be effective in encouraging customers to use only the water that they need and that this helps to increase the sustainability of water use; and looks to the water companies to use the flexibility available to them to develop their own tariff structures and methods best suited to the needs of customers and to local circumstances.'.
I have been wondering for some time why the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) put his name to a motion that says something that is untrue.

Mr. Mike Hall: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State has said that the motion says something that is untrue. If it did, would it not be out of order?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The Chair is not responsible for the accuracy of points made in any motion.

Mr. Gummer: I have made it clear, not only today but on many other occasions, that the Government are not in favour of compulsory water metering, and that there is no hidden agenda for that. Therefore, the motion is both otiose and as near to misleading the House as is possible within the rules of order.

Mr. Eric Martlew: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Gummer: I will do so when I have finished the first paragraph of my speech. I want to suggest why it is that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has put his name to what would otherwise be an inconceivable motion. The reason is simple: he has been the leading Opposition spokesman on the environment for nearly two years, and throughout that period the Opposition have not taken the chance to debate their environmental policies or sought to focus attention on the great global issues that should concern us.
We have had no Supply day debate pressing us on global warming; no Opposition debate on the ozone layer, sustainable development or biodiversity. None of the matters that will really affect our children and grandchildren appear to have touched Opposition Members at all. In two years as Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has managed to make hundreds of speeches, but only one concerned the environment. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras put his name to the motion because he dare not debate the environment. He has


nothing to say about the environment, and has said nothing about it for two whole years. There has been no debate; there have been no speeches and no commitment.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Gummer: I am happy to do so.

Mr. Dobson: Do not the Government command the majority of business in the House? If the Secretary of State wants to debate the great environmental issues of the day, he has about 10 times as much opportunity as the Opposition to decide what is to be debated. I am sorry for the right hon. Gentleman: I am sorry that he cannot convince the Cabinet that such matters merit debate.

Mr. Gummer: The reason is that the Government lead Europe on the problems of climate change, the ozone layer, pollution and every other major environmental issue. We have moved to that position without any help or pressure from the Opposition. My only explanation for the Opposition's behaviour is that, in the face of a Government who are increasingly recognised to be leading Europe and the world in environmental matters, they dare not express their view. I am not complacent about the United Kingdom's record, or about the wider record of the European Union; but I can understand an Opposition view that recognises that the Government have already established so firm a footing on the environment that there is little scope for the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, or any of his hon. Friends, even to raise the issue.
What is incomprehensible is the way in which, in the face of huge environmental challenges, the Opposition turn their back on principle, ignore the dramatically serious world environment situation, throw the future to the winds and seek to win a few short-term votes by adopting fundamentally anti-environmental policies. Let me give an example.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Gummer: I will after I have given my example, as the hon. Gentleman may wish to change his intervention as a result.
All over the country, the Labour party has dropped an appeal for funds through the letter boxes of decent people. It starts by praising itself for its attack on environmental taxation. It makes no positive suggestions in regard to how it would help to counter climate change; it merely makes a crude and undisguised appeal to people's immediate self-interest, with no concern about long-term environmental damage. No wonder that, in its approach to a manifesto last week, the Labour party managed no more than two paragraphs making glancing references to the environment.
When I pointed that out, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras attempted to excuse it by saying that environmental concern was found in every area of policy. Today's debate, however, shows that environmental concern cannot even be found in the shadow Secretary of State for the Environment. Even in his shadow Department, he has no idea—so he advances the idea of a hidden agenda. A shadow Minister has proposed a hidden agenda. It is not, of course, a true agenda; it is contrary

to the truth. That, no doubt, is why the hon. Gentleman will remain a shadow Minister dealing in hidden agendas and shadow views for the rest of his life.
The hon. Gentleman expresses his views; but, in a week that has produced the most detailed report on global warming and the effect of climate change on water resources in Britain, the Labour party can manage only a pathetic motion designed to grub up a few votes rather than grappling with the real issues. [Interruption.] As usual, the hon. Gentleman giggles at global warming, sustainable development and all the real issues of the environment. No wonder every environmental organisation in the country considers him a laughable figure, especially those who were formerly willing to support the Labour party. The hon. Gentleman does not realise that his giggle has become the symbol of Labour's anti-environmental policy, and its inability to come to terms with the real needs of our children and grandchildren.

Mr. Skinner: Why should anyone believe that the Secretary of State wants to do something about the environment throughout the world? This Government agree with market forces, and implement that philosophy to the nth degree. How on earth is it possible to patch up the hole in the ozone layer with a man, a bike, a ladder and an enterprise allowance? The truth is that that can be done only through co-operation among all nation states. Market forces cannot solve the problem; as a matter of fact, market forces created it.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that this year, as Secretary of State for the Environment, I was given an award by the environmental organisations for being the Member of Parliament who had done most for international co-operation on the environment. The hon. Gentleman has, in fact, reminded us that this Government and this Secretary of State have done precisely what he wants us to do.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras must begin to be asked whether he and his party are yet ready for a proper debate on environmental policy as a whole, instead of on some narrow issue on which they detect there is short-term political gain to be had. In every other Parliament in Europe, the Government, whether they be Conservative or Labour, are under constant pressure from their Opposition on global warming and all the other major issues. This Opposition either have decided that the Government are so right on these issues that they cannot attack us, or are so confused on the issues that they dare not expose their policy.
When he intervened on the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) asked a simple question: what was the Labour party's policy? The hon. Gentleman promised, as he always does, that he would tell us what his policy was before the end of his speech. I did not leave the Chamber during his speech. I listened with rapt attention, but he still did not say what the Labour party policy was. He has never said what the Labour party's environmental policy is. Even in its manifesto, he did not point it out, apart from giving a few generalised words.
The issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised, however, is directly connected to the single most important matter that faces the world in environmental policy. At this moment, the parties to the United Nations framework


convention on climate change, the very people that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) suggests should be tackling these matters together, are meeting in Geneva, and I shall join them later, to consider the recent report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. That report is unanimous that there is now a discernible human influence on global climate.
Last week I published a report on the consequent changes to our climate—changes that we know cannot be avoided or deferred. We can ask ourselves only how we can live sustainedly in the light of them. The United Kingdom has set ambitious targets for the reduction of pollution, targets which only two other countries in Europe have begun to meet, but which most of the other European countries are beginning to consider seriously. We have set our face in the clear determination to reduce the impact of climate change, but we have accepted that so much has been damaged that real change is inevitable, however successful our crusade may be.
The report points out that, in the next 50 years, south-east Britain will be hotter and drier, and the north-west of these islands wetter. Our country's most populous regions will have less water to use. At the same time, demand for water is growing and is likely to go on doing so. The major cause of the increase is changing life styles. As we grow wealthier as a society, which is happening, and have more leisure, we have more dish washers and power showers. Most important, we want to water the gardens in which we rightly take so much pride, but, on top of that, demand will increase simply because the climate is hotter and drier.
The Opposition's panacea is to cure leakage in the distribution system. Do that, says the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, and all will be well. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman was invited to give us a comprehensive policy statement. He did not do that and therefore I think I have every right to suggest that, overwhelmingly, his speech was concerned with the suggestion that we did not need to do a number of other things because the one thing that really mattered was leakage, which I will deal with later.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that we shall not need to have water meters or changes to tariff structures. He and the Consumers Association think that all we need to do is invent an alternative charging method that more or less replicates the old system of rateable values, and that we should turn our faces resolutely against payment by volume, even though the rest of the developed world concluded long ago that that is the only sensible basis on which to charge for water.
That is interesting from the hon. Gentleman's point of view because, yet again, he has used a well-known, but wholly unacceptable, rhetorical trick. He quotes about water metering and concludes about compulsory water metering, as if the two were the same. He quotes someone's support for water metering, quotes someone's antagonism to compulsory water metering and then says that that shows that the Government's policy, which is in support of voluntary water metering, is therefore wrong.
The hon. Gentleman was challenged, for example, by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), the spokesman for the Liberal party. He will agree that I am not always entirely enthusiastic about the Liberal party's policies, but

he asked an important question and it turned out that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras was not opposed to metering in general—he was opposed to compulsory metering. That means that we agree—we are on the same side. So why is it that he should feel it proper to suggest that there is a hidden agenda, unless he wants to divert the public's attention from the fact that he has no agenda at all, hidden or exposed?
We are longing for an exposure of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. We need to know what he really believes about water, as we have not heard it.

Mr. Martlew: I served on the Standing Committee that created the privatised water industry. In that Committee, the Government put through a clause that said that all new houses had to have compulsory water meters. Is the Secretary of State telling us that there has been a change and that, from now on, people moving into new houses will have a choice between the old system, which they have in Scotland, and compulsory water meters, or are meters compulsory for those people?

Mr. Gummer: In those circumstances, almost everyone—and I use the word "almost" because one of the great advantages of having a privatised system is that different companies make their own decisions—already has an option. The meter is installed, but the company allows people to decide, either immediately or after a period, whether they want the rateable value alternative or the meter. Anglian Water, my own local water company, used to have a compulsory water metering system. It has retreated from that and offered everyone who was compulsorily metered the choice of continuing that or returning to the rateable value system. Almost no one has chosen to move. The majority of people have wanted to stay.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock), I clearly take the view that people should have the choice. I believe in choice, but I also believe that one should not set one's face against any sort of metering or make the farrago of allegations that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras made, slipping from compulsory to voluntary water metering, which so disfigured his rather over-long speech.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: In making a point about the question that I asked the Opposition spokesman, the Secretary of State got things a little wrong. I asked how the hon. Gentleman felt about the compulsory metering of people who use water excessively, in relation, for instance, to swimming pools. He suggested that he might be in favour of compulsory metering in those circumstances. Could the Secretary of State tell us whether he is in favour of compulsory metering in those circumstances?

Mr. Gummer: Unlike the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, I am going to go through each area of water metering precisely, point by point, so that no one has any doubt where I stand, because it is the duty of anyone who believes in sustainable development to say clearly how to deal with that important issue. When I have gone through each of those points, I hope that, if the hon. Member for Truro feels that I have not been absolutely clear on each point, he will stand up and I will be happy to give way.

Mr. James Pawsey: May I immediately say that I am an unpaid consultant to Severn Trent and advise my right hon. Friend that I took advantage of Severn Trent's scheme for providing free and voluntary water meters? Since the installation of a water meter in my home, our bills have been almost halved and we now have a positive incentive to reduce the amount of water that we consume. That is good for our pocket and for the environment.

Mr. Gummer: I shall come to the issue of incentives. Does not my hon. Friend find it rather odd that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said in reply to the Liberal Democrat spokesman that he favoured compulsory metering for non-essential uses because it would reduce consumption, although earlier he said that he was against metering for everything else because it had no effect on consumption? The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways, and I shall explain why he has got it wrong.
The problem with the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras is that he lives in the past and pretends that climate change will go away or need not concern us. I know that, because he made no public statement welcoming our report on climate change or encouraging people to take seriously the effect of that on the nation. His stance is in stark contrast to that of all Labour spokesmen in every other European country. They have been willing to use the climate change issue as one of the reasons for accepting cross-party agreements. The hon. Gentleman had not a word of support for the independent statement that was produced on the very best scientific advice. He made no attempt to make people in Britain recognise that there is much that we can do to avoid the worst effects of climatic change.
I hope that the current discussions in Geneva will produce agreements that will halt or reverse changes that are still to come. However, we must recognise that those which have already occurred will inevitably have their effect. We must put sustainable development and the "polluter pays" principle at the centre of water policy. That means relating the use of resources directly to their cost of provision and of avoiding unacceptable impacts.
One of the ways to manage water use sustainedly will be to create a link, where that is right, between what is used and the amount that is paid for it. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) was right to point to that. In turning their backs on metering, the Opposition are ignoring a tool for achieving sustainable water use that virtually everyone else recognises as essential. That is one of the tools, but our approach should not be misrepresented.
We must dramatically reduce leakage and we must design and install water-using equipment that does its job without unnecessary waste. In some places we shall probably need, somehow or other, to provide additional water resources without damaging the environment. However, if we turn our backs on linking payment and consumption in almost all circumstances we shall make it harder to achieve the sustainable use of water and make inevitable the development of more new reservoirs, in some cases with attendant environmental damage.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras needs to understand those linkages better if he is to shape an environmental policy. I should like to encourage him to shape such a policy, because it is becoming a serious embarrassment to the United Kingdom that every Labour party abroad asks me why the British Labour party does not

have an environmental policy. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman again giggles. He would not do that if he heard what the leaders of Labour parties in the rest of Europe say about his party and the environment. It is the only serious anti-environment party in Europe and that is worrying.
It is difficult to believe that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras is truly committed to the principle of sustainable development because the words "sustainable development" and "biodiversity" do not appear in the recently published and much trumpeted Labour party manifesto. Most people cannot discuss the environment without referring to those core concepts, but those words are not part of the thinking of the modern Labour party. New Labour has no role for sustainable development or biodiversity in its statement of its view of the future of this country.
If the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras were interested in sustainable development, he would sign up to the principle—to which every country has signed—that, where possible, sensible and cost-effective, there must be a connection between the cost of using resources—whether water or any other resource—and the charge that is paid for those resources. That means we should sensibly move towards metering, because that enables the water company to measure the amount that has been used and charge the consumer accordingly. It provides consumption information for the company and the consumer can see how much water he is using.
But that must be done voluntarily: it must not be compulsory. By his constant attack on water metering, the hon. Gentleman discourages those for whom metering would be a good idea. In that sense he sets himself against every Labour spokesman in every country in the European Union.

Mr. Hall: The Secretary of State has suggested that the occupants of new houses with water meters who want to go back to the rating system have only to contact their local water authority. Will the Secretary of State place on record that that facility is available from United Utilities, which was formerly North West Water? I have a water meter but I have been given no such option, and I do not think that one is generally available.

Mr. Gummer: I should be happy to look into the hon. Gentleman's case. In many instances even more than that is offered. For example, right from the beginning Anglian Water customers are told about that choice; they do not have to approach the company to find out about it. Customers are asked to use the meter for a couple of bills to make a comparison, and the majority of customers want to retain water metering. If the hon. Gentleman knows of people who do not do as well as that, I shall be happy to propose to the water company concerned some forward-looking companies which offer that choice. I think that the majority offer it.
Metering is not the only answer; not the only way forward. I favour it as part of a progressive and sensible approach that will gradually extend the use of meters as appropriate. Some companies will wish to proceed more rapidly than others, and metering will be more cost-effective in some areas than in others. We have no hidden agenda for compulsion. It is a sensible agenda which says that water metering should play a part in any positive and sensible policy of sustainable development and the protection of our resources for future generations.

Mr. Brian David Jenkins: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I shall give way in a moment after I have dealt with the current point.
In the long term, metering must be the best basis for paying for water in a range of circumstances. It is equitable in that it relates charges directly to the amount that has been used. As the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has said, that method is also favoured by the Director General of Water Services and by many people who consider that payment in proportion to the volume that has been consumed is the fairest way of charging. The hon. Gentleman issued strictures on the director general. If instead of reappointing the director general I had sacked him and put someone else in his place, the hon. Gentleman would have said, "There you are: he can't stand the independence of Mr. Byatt. He is trying to fiddle the arrangements and not standing up for the independence that he has always claimed."
We know that Labour's hidden agenda is not to have an independent figure at all. Instead of what the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras called the "quirky views" of the independent regulator, we would have the quirky views of the hon. Gentleman, and we certainly know about those. They are about the quirkiest that hon. Members have heard and they do not contain any concept of sustainable development, a phrase that he did not manage to get his leader to put in the Labour document.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Gummer: I shall give way in a moment.
The House should ask about the position of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras in the shadow Cabinet when he cannot get the words "sustainable development" and "biodiversity" in an innocuous paragraph, in a footnote, or even in half a sentence in Labour's manifesto for the future. It is called "Towards a Manifesto" but, of course, the party is checking to see whether everybody agrees with it and then it will take out anything that is controversial.
I noticed something very interesting. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said that his policies would not be decided on sustainable development, based on requests from the United Nations or designed to take the necessary actions on climate change, but they will be decided on the basis of what might be popular.
That is it. The Labour party says, "What we will do is a little public opinion poll and see if we can find a policy that will be popular." Even though it destroys the nation in the future and damages us and our children irrevocably, the policy of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras can be stated as: "It was popular at the time, and I might have got a half a dozen votes in Holborn and St. Pancras."
That is new Labour, new danger. I shall tell the House of the new dangers. They are that new Labour would leave our children and grandchildren unprotected against global warming if it were unpopular to pass any necessary measures. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has shown us today that new Labour means new dangers for each new generation.

Mr. Brian David Jenkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gummer: I give way to the hon. Member for South-East Staffordshire (Mr. Jenkins) in case he can give us an answer.

Mr. Jenkins: May I ask the Minister to explain something, please? I am little lost on what he said about the independent regulator. Are you telling me that you have no control at all over the regulator—no guidelines and no democratic accountability—but that that individual is simply a maverick out there running loose? As a Government, surely you must lay down the guidelines. You must—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is addressing me.

Mr. Jenkins: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. Surely the Secretary of State must give us some guidance on exactly what guidelines the Government have laid down for the regulator. He is assuring me and Opposition Members that he has no guidelines to lay down for the regulator.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that guidelines are laid down as a result of decisions made in the House. That is the regulator's independence. The regulator is a statutory figure whose operation comes within the purview of what the House decides. If the Secretary of State could overrule him or push him about, he would not be an independent regulator.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras should realise that. I realise that he is preparing for what he hopes will be—it will not happen—a Labour Government, when the idea of independence will be as foreign to that relationship as the idea of Labour Members' independence now is to the leader of the Labour party. We all know about independence in the Labour party—it is having the right to say that one agrees with the leader. That is independence in the Labour party, and the regulator would be subject to that. He would have the independence to say that he has the right to agree with the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, which would make the field for competition for that job extremely small and extremely poor.
I remind the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras of what I said before. I think that it is an abuse of the House to make a proposition, which is absolutely and categorically denied, on three separate occasions in the debate and not be prepared to withdraw it. It is perfectly understandable if the hon. Gentleman has made a mistake or what he referred to as "a slip". It was interesting that he attacked my right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) for making a slip in the House when responding to a question, but that he has not apologised for a slip in which he has tabled a motion making a statement that has been categorically denied by me.
In those circumstances, I should think that hon. Members would feel it incumbent on an hon. Member to withdraw such a statement. Clearly it is no place for the Speaker to intervene in the terms of a motion, and that is perfectly right. I would not for a moment suggest to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this is a role for you, and I would not have raised it as a point of order.
It is a matter for the conscience of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras to decide whether it is proper to spend three hours of the time of the House debating a motion that he knows is not true. He knows that because


hon. Members have given him their assurance that it is not true. It is a very sad fact that the House has reached such a position.
I should like to encourage companies and customers to consider switching to meters. I have no intention of demanding compulsory transfers to metering of existing domestic customers in existing premises or of water used for essential purposes. That is not the sensible way forward. However, I believe that companies should extend the availability of meters as far as is reasonable.
I support a selective approach to metering, and not universal or crash metering programmes. It is sensible to meter where it is cheap or economic to do so, such as in new properties, in commercial properties, in households that use large amounts of water for non-domestic or non-essential purpose—such as garden sprinklers or swimming pools—and where resources are limited.
In wishing to see a wider use of meters, we should not ignore three important aspects. I hope that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson)—for whom I have considerable respect—will listen carefully to these three statements. If the hon. Lady agrees with them, I hope that at least she will admit that this motion is less accurate than she would like it to be.
I think that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras is giggling again. I have noticed that, when he is on weak ground, he giggles. I hope that Conservative Members will note that and, please, point it out when it occurs. He has giggled a lot during this debate, and the reason is that he has been on a great deal of very weak ground.
First, we should like systems to be developed that particularly take account of the needs of poorer families. There are a number of ways in which that might be done, and it is of course for the companies to develop appropriate charging structures, or to offer an alternative method of charging where necessary. I hope that, even when people are given the absolute choice whether they want meters, the companies will be sensitive to the needs of large low-income families, and particularly the needs of those with special medical conditions who require greater than average water consumption.
I should tell the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras that it is unacceptable to describe to Conservative Members why people who are incontinent or who have certain diseases require more water. For many years, many Conservative Members have looked after people in those circumstances. The concept that the hon. Gentleman is the only hon. Member who understands such matters is unacceptable and should not be given credence.
Some companies have already taken action by providing budget payment units where requested. What has the Opposition's reaction been, even though those units have been installed only on request, and will also be removed on request? They have said that they will ban the units. So much for customer choice. Even if someone wants a meter, he or she cannot have one because of the quirky views of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras.
Secondly, we should recognise that, in some parts of the country and in some circumstances, metering may not be cost effective or appropriate. For example, there are some properties—older properties or blocks of flats—in

which metering may be impractical. As I have already mentioned, there may be some customers with special needs who should be taken into account.
Thirdly, as a general rule, we should avoid the use of compulsion. We want to take people with us in this enterprise and to convince them about the benefits of metering. I believe that the vast majority of customers, once they get used to the idea of having a meter, become convinced of its advantages. That is not only what I believe but, according to recent tests, is a fact: when people have been asked whether they want to return to the old system, they stay with meters. That is particularly true in East Anglia.
Anglian Water is gradually installing meters in existing properties, but the existing customer has the option of continuing to be charged on a rateable value basis if he or she prefers. The customer can compare the rateable value based bill with what the metered charge would have been, and can then decide to switch to the meter at a later date.
Where customers have opted to have a meter installed in a property, 14 companies now allow them to revert to rateable value based charging if they wish. When people have gone to the company and said, "I want to have metering," they can still opt to go back.
I welcome that element of flexibility, which will make metering generally much more acceptable to consumers. Of course, that has had very little effect on the number of meters, because the vast majority of people want to go on—[Interruption.]

Mr. Hanson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gummer: No, I shall go on for a moment. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman shortly.
The Opposition persist in putting all their emphasis on reducing leakage, as if that were the whole story—the be-all and end-all of water resource management. But that is only part of the story. The Opposition constantly say that recent legislation placed a requirement only on the customer to make the best use of water. That is because water companies already have that requirement. Section 37 of the 1991 Act places a duty on
every water undertaker to develop and maintain an efficient and economical system of water supply within its area".
We did not repeat that requirement, because we are always being told by Labour that we do not need to double the burden on companies or individuals. If something is in the law, we do not need to say it again. "Say it again, Sam" may well be the policy of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, because most of his speeches repeat the ill-founded view that we have not provided water companies with the requirements.
The Government's approach is to use all the options available. That means selective metering and appropriate tariff structures, as well as utilising modern, water-efficient technology, particularly when supplying new properties.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I promise the hon. Gentleman that I shall go through all the options in detail, and he will not miss out.
If one is serious about global warming—as the Government are—it is necessary to use all the means at one's disposal. But, until today, Labour appeared—as the hon. Member for Truro will be aware—not to be prepared even to consider metering.

Mr. Dobson: The Secretary of State claims that the privatisation law makes it possible for the regulator or the Government to oblige the water companies to stop leaking water. Why have they not done so, as the companies are leaking more now than when they were privatised?

Mr. Gummer: Certain companies have not done well since privatisation on leakages, but others have done extremely well. We given every company a target. If a company does not reach it—or if it looks like the company is not doing enough to reach it—I will make the target mandatory and force the company to do what it has voluntarily agreed to.
By introducing a voluntary system, we were able to get the companies to agree to a speedier change than would have been possible if we had a general figure enforced by law. If one can get people to do something voluntarily, they will do it better and more effectively. The problem with Labour is that it is never prepared to do anything voluntarily. It wanted to jump immediately to mandatory levels, even though it did not know what those levels were and could get an idea only by discussing it with the companies. What company could operate satisfactorily when the Government is saying, "Give us the figures and we will hit you as hard as we can"? That is not a satisfactory way of getting the best figures or the best answers.
The Government should go to a company and say, "Look, this job has to be done properly. Let us look at these things together and get the toughest figure we think we can achieve. Frankly, we will screw it a bit further afterwards. If you do not reach that figure, we will have to use mandatory arrangements." That works more effectively, but I know that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has little experience of making anything work.

Mr. Hanson: I am interested in how the Secretary of State envisages the charging system after 31 March 2000. It will be illegal to use rateable value, and the Secretary of State has ruled out using council tax—leaving only water metering. What does he intend to do?

Mr. Gummer: I do not blame the hon. Gentleman for being out of date—his party's Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, is out of date also. We announced 18 months ago that we will change the law so that the rateable value system can continue after 2000, and we have made that clear. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras knows that, but chose to explain to the House that that was not so. If he did not know that, he was ignorant. If he, as the shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, is ignorant, he has no business moving any motion—particularly not the one we are debating.

Sir Anthony Grant: A classic example of my right hon. Friend's voluntary approach can be seen in Anglian, which has the lowest leakage rate in the country. That rate is continuing to fall on an entirely voluntary basis.

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend's area also has a succesful record in water metering and the most flexible system possible. A large number of people have opted for meters, and a large number who were given the opportunity not to have them decided that they wanted meters.
Using metering to help to reduce demand can provide a cheaper and more environmentally friendly alternative to costly capital schemes to develop new water resources, lessening the requirement for new reservoirs and further depletion of our rivers. Studies have shown that the installation of a meter in an unmeasured household can lead to an average reduction in per capita consumption of between 10 and 15 per cent., and a reduction in peak demand of up to 30 per cent. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras should realise that peak demands impose peak costs, which must be paid by everybody—metered or not. Water has many uses—some essential for public health, and others optional, such as swimming pools and watering lawns.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has not faced the fact that we need as widespread a metering system as is voluntarily acceptable and widely reasonable and a reduction in leakages. Only in that way can we start to use water responsibly. The fact is that the system works. In dry regions, companies that had extensive metering programmes in place during the summer of 1995 generally experienced lower peak demands and fewer supply difficulties than companies without such programmes—the very issue about which the hon. Gentleman made such a fuss.
Where water companies have a programme of meter installation, there is no installation charge. However, when a customer requests a meter under the meter option scheme, an installation charge is normally payable. I welcome the fact that companies are reducing this cost, and that the average cost of installing a meter has fallen by 51 per cent. since 1993. I am pleased that eight companies—Severn Trent, Wessex, Anglian, Folkestone and Dover, Mid Southern, South East, Sutton and East Surrey, and Wrexham—now offer free installation under their meter option scheme.
One of the best ways of testing our views is so see how our partners in Europe operate, in case we may learn from them. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras must accept that he is the odd man out. Metering is widely used in Germany, Finland, Belgium, Greece, Italy, Austria, Portugal, Denmark, France, Sweden and Spain. The Labour parties in those countries would have been amazed by the hon. Gentleman's speech today. They would think that he had taken leave of his senses.
Is the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras suggesting that, in many cases, the socialists in those countries have supported compulsory water metering to do all the terrible things that he says it brings about? Did not socialist President Mitterrand compulsorily stop the system that previously obtained in much of France and turn it over to compulsory water metering? Does the hon. Gentleman think that that kind of socialism was designed to hurt the poorest families? Of course not-he is trying to make a party political point and gain a few votes by proposing a policy that is manifestly barmy and entirely opposed to anything proposed by any European Labour party.

Mr. Dobson: Does the Secretary of State realise that those European states that have had water metering for a long time will not incur the installation costs that we will face? As a result of the Government's policy, this country will be voluntarily taking on extra costs that other European states do not face, as they spent the money years ago.

Mr. Gummer: That is why I pointed out the approach of President Mitterrand, who totally changed the system in southern France and imposed new metering throughout that area, incurring, in the process, the costs to which the hon. Gentleman referred. But President Mitterrand was concerned with sustainable development, knew the meaning of biodiversity, had heard about the environment and would not have made the speech that the hon. Gentleman made today. He would have been laughed off the podium if he had even begun to do so. None of the European socialist parties would recognise the hon. Gentleman's argument.
Labour is the party that wants to give up the UK's veto, yet it is already entirely out of step with Europe on a mere matter of water. What would happen if Labour gave up the veto and the rest of Europe said, "Well, Mr. Dobson, we think by a majority that we ought to have water metering for all"? What would he do? The hon. Gentleman would be in some difficulty. All his socialist friends would favour it, but he would have given up the veto. Few hon. Members have a better claim than he to enthusiasm for our membership of the European Union, but the British Labour party would find it impossible to live with the Labour parties of the rest of Europe, because many of them have moved into the 20th century. To judge from his speech, he clearly has not.
There is no doubt that the Government, the Office of Water Services and the Environment Agency regard the reduction of leakage as an important element of sustainable development. We have made it clear that we expect water companies to reduce their leakage rates as rapidly as possible. All the water companies are answering that call. Last October, they committed themselves to reducing leakage to levels comparable with the best international practice. We compare ourselves with the rest of Europe rather than pretending that it has nothing to tell us.
The water companies have announced long-term targets. The Director General of Water Services has published each and every company's long-term leakage target and those for the next financial year. Some water companies are aiming for levels as low as 10 per cent. within the next four years, but if the director general judges that any company's proposals are inadequate by reference to achievements elsewhere, he will insist on more demanding targets.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Secretary of State has moved on from metering, but would he make it compulsory to take meters for people whose water use is excessive, such as those who use sprinklers? Some water companies are doing that and it is important to know whether he agrees with that practice. Given that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that some properties are unlikely ever to be metered because of their construction, for how long will it be acceptable to use the rateable values of 1974—into the next century, or the one after?

Mr. Gummer: Of course, some properties will probably be entirely unsuitable for metering for many

years. That is why we have extended the use of rateable values. The Liberal party is keen on using council tax bands, but a third of people would be much worse off as a result, and many of them would be the poorest people.

Mr. Taylor: indicated dissent.

Mr. Gummer: I do not say that only because of our evidence; the Consumers Association has made that clear. The hon. Gentleman is in a minority. If the Liberal party wants that, I shall have to tell the people of the south-west how damaging it will be to the poorest people. He advocates it only by promising those who would benefit that they would do well and not telling those who would suffer that they would do badly. What is new about that for the Liberal party? That is the mechanism that they use for everything.
The recent speech of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) on local government reform was a wonderful example. He told one ward that he was in favour of a unitary authority for Newbury, but he opposed them for the rest of Berkshire. The hon. Member for Truro follows in a long line of Liberal policy: one policy per ward; if that does not work, it is one policy per person on the doorstep. What are the principles of the Liberal party? "We've got many, just you choose between them." That is the fact of the Liberal party. As someone said to me, if God had been a Liberal, we would have had the ten suggestions.
The hon. Gentleman is spreading liberalism into the furthest corners in trying to explain his water policy. Come off it; when the Liberal party is prepared to tell the poorest that they are going to pay more under the council tax system, we will believe that it has a serious contribution to make to the water debate. I give way to a more serious figure.

Mr. Martlew: I thank the Secretary of State for that. Does he realise that we have had to listen to him for 52 minutes? When will he conclude?

Mr. Gummer: When I have finished answering the points raised by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) deserves at least one water policy this evening; he has not had one from his party.
Reducing the use of water through demand management makes sense. Since 1 February this year, all water companies have been under a new duty to promote the efficient use of water by their customers, which is the parallel to the duty that they have to use water efficiently themselves. The independent director general is empowered to enforce that duty. I have made it clear that all companies need to carry that through. He has written to them to explain what he expects from them, including the development of material to promote water conservation by the consumer and the consideration of more attractive meter option schemes. He has asked them to submit strategies in the form of water efficiency plans by 1 October.
The plans will be considered in the light of each company's circumstances and the views of other interested organisations. They will be published and, in tune with the Consumers Association's report, they will


be available to the public so that they can see what their water company is doing. Companies will be required to submit annual reports on progress to the regulator.
We are also making sure that, when the water companies' byelaws for the prevention of contamination, waste, misuse and undue consumption of water expire next year, they will be replaced by regulations. I shall shortly announce the membership of the committee that will make recommendations on the technical provisions for inclusion in those regulations.
I am not going to do it in a quirky way, off the top of my head, as the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras would. I shall ensure that the people concerned with the matter and who have a wide understanding of the business produce the propositions. That will afford the opportunity for new requirements on water usage via fittings and appliances to be considered. It will include recommendations on WC flush volumes and the consumption of shower units. Again, the Consumers Association regards those matters as significant, and we are already tackling them.

Mr. Fabricant: On the use of flushing systems, will my right hon. Friend continue to resist moves by certain European sanitary ware companies to introduce non-siphonic systems? Dare I say that the system we have in the UK, which cannot leak, was invented by Mr. Thomas Crapper? More than 400 million gallons of water are wasted every year in France alone through non-siphonic systems.

Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend for his consistent and valuable pressure on the matter. I want to go further than merely ensuring that we do not have something worse than what we have got; I want something better. Thomas Crapper did a fine job in his time. I published his biography, which was a successful, widely sold book. It is to be found in most of the best smallest rooms in the house. I want lavatories that use less water but provide an equally efficient service.
The Opposition must find a way to advise the water companies on what they regard as the best method of charging. They do not appear to know. The hon. Member for Truro did us a favour by pressing the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras on compulsion for non-essential uses, which I favour. There are many circumstances in which that can be a sensible way to proceed. The only difficulty is that many of the mechanisms for so doing are as yet not properly developed. I would not like that to be an excuse for compulsory water metering where it would obviously be unsatisfactory. Clearly, people who use water to fill their swimming pools should pay for it differently from how they would pay for washing their hands or flushing the loo.
The Opposition failed to put forward any constructive suggestions. We know that they are against metering, but what proposals do they have? What do they favour? What does new Labour want to say? It says what it does not want but not what it wants. That is the danger with new Labour. We know that it must have a hidden agenda, or it would have no agenda at all. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has not explained whether his

problem is that he does not have an agenda and so cannot tell us about it or whether he does have one but it is unacceptable and therefore he will not tell us about it.
We have heard about the Liberal Democrats and the council tax valuation bands. The Consumers Association states:
Linking the finely defined rateable value of a property to its much broader council tax band would be difficult.
Many low-income families could experience a considerable increase in their bills with this switch. We must ensure that everyone in the south-west, in Truro and the villages round about—one of the lowest income areas in the UK—knows that the hon. Member for Truro wants to push up the water bills of the poorest because of Liberal party dogma.
Companies should continue to provide a wide range of charging options so that they can suit the system to the circumstances. In addition to rateable values and metering, they can use a flat rate fee or a charge based on the number of occupants or the characteristics of the property. Some areas such as South Staffordshire are pursuing wholly different, innovative proposals, to which I hope the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras will listen. Nevertheless, in the long term the demands of sustainable development must make the increasing use of metering especially important.
It is sad that today the Opposition have used an Opposition Supply day not to discuss global warming, sustainable development or the issues that our children and grandchildren most need us to discuss, not to deal with the great issues, but to discuss a proposition which is entirely untrue. They have used it to oppose compulsory water metering when no one is proposing it. It is the oldest debating trick in the world: if one cannot answer the real arguments of one's opponents, one proposes a wholly fictitious argument which one can answer. It is knockdown for people who cannot even land a blow.
The trouble is that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has not won a single debate, a single Question Time or a single issue on the environment in the two years since he became environment spokesman—his anniversary is about now. The hon. Gentleman is the least environmentally friendly shadow Secretary of State for the Environment that the country has seen in 25 years. Given the Labour party's history on the environment, that is a pretty difficult thing to be.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has been exposed today. His hidden agenda is something that we now know. It consists of no answers to no real questions, no future for our children, no answers to the problems of our grandchildren. He has proved again that new Labour means new dangers not just for this generation but for the next and succeeding generations.

Mr. Eric Martlew: I am sure that we have had some global warming tonight—we have just had 61 minutes of hot air. The last time I heard the Secretary of State speak in that way was when he told us, as Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, that there was no problem with bovine spongiform encephalopathy. He is as guilty as anyone in the House of causing the current problems with BSE. I fear for the environment while he is in charge.
I shall have to make a short speech because the Secretary of State took so long and hon. Members wish to get on. When the legislation to privatise the water industry was going through the House, many of us believed that we would move to a system of water rationing. That is what metering is about—rationing by price. The Government believe in rationing by price. There is no argument about it.
I always find that people who are in favour of compulsory water metering are mean in spirit and, therefore, tend by their very nature to vote Conservative. They are the sort of people who have had a large family and whose children have left home. They write to their Member of Parliament when they live on their own or as a couple, saying that there should be compulsory water metering. They forget that they benefited for many years from a system under which they paid less than they would have paid under compulsory water metering.
The point that I should like to bring home concerns pre-payment meters, which the Secretary of State touched on only for a sentence. He used plenty of time, but he skated over this one. The idea is put about that poor people would like a pre-payment system and want to use it. The only saving to poor people would be when they were disconnected.
I am proud to say that my local authority has joined the battle against North West Water, which is now United Utilities—that just means that the company can cut off our water and our electricity. My council, led by the mayor, who is a fine Labour member of the council and a fine mayor, has joined the campaign against pre-payment meters. However, not only Labour councillors, but Tory councillors in my constituency, along with other agencies such as housing associations and the British Medical Association, are opposed to pre-payment meters. They are against such a system because they realise that the water company could cut off poor people's supply without having to go through the courts. That is what it is all about. North West Water actually said so in last week's edition of the East Cumbrian Gazette. It was reported as saying of the pre-payment option:
It will he aimed at low income customers, who may already be in debt to us".
I bet it will be. Such people will cut themselves off because they cannot afford water.
It may sound dramatic, but I can envisage people who have no electricity using candles, a fire starting and there being no water to put it out. That is how serious the matter is. That is what we have come to in this country. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) dissents from a sedentary position, as he is prone to do—as you pointed out earlier, Madam Deputy Speaker. What I am saying is the reality for some people, and all we get is arrogance from Conservative Members.
Not only the Labour-controlled council is against pre-payment meters. Dalston parish council, which is not Labour, will come into my constituency, I am glad to say, following the boundary review. It has written to me, and perhaps to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), asking me to bring its objections to pre-payment meters to the attention of the House. It says that they would create a special problem for people who live in rural areas, where there is often no public transport, who will have to travel great distances to obtain pre-payment cards—or smart cards. The council does not

think that such a system is in the interests of its parishioners. I do not think that it is in the interests of my constituents. I hope that the Government will reject it.
I hope that local authorities in the north-west will pursue their threat to apply legal pressure. I believe that pre-payment meters are illegal. All they are about is reducing the debt levels of United Utilities. There is great alarm in my constituency about the matter, and great anger. Nine miles to the north of my constituency is Scotland, where households cannot have their water cut off. Perhaps the Secretary of State does not know that, but that is the reality. Within nine miles of the border we will have a system under which people who cannot afford to buy smart cards will cut themselves off and have no water. They will have no redress through the courts. That is a situation the Government seem prepared not only to tolerate, but to encourage. The Secretary of State should come to the Dispatch Box and apologise to the people he will put in that position.

Mr. Fabricant: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there are fewer disconnections of households with water meters than of those without? In any case, what is the hon. Gentleman suggesting? Is he committing his party to renationalising the water companies?

Mr. Martlew: As I said in the debates on the privatisation Bill, I believe that water is a matter of health and that therefore everyone is entitled to an adequate supply. The hon. Gentleman obviously does not think that. I am talking about pre-payment meters. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman understands. People who live in new houses, most of which have water meters, tend to be able to pay their bills. The hon. Gentleman may be able to figure that one out for himself.
Pre-payment meters will be installed for people who have difficulty paying their bills. They will cut themselves off. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that that is fine. I came into politics to oppose hon. Members like him and to stick up for the people who need to be protected.

Mr. Gummer: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman agrees that a water meter is installed only if the customer requests it and agrees to it, and that it has to be taken out if the customer wishes. Does he agree that it is interesting that, when water was nationalised, there were twice as many disconnections as there were last year under privatised water? Will he consider the difference between the supply in Scotland during the difficult period in the winter and the supply in the privatised industry in England?

Mr. Martlew: The Minister has spoken for an hour, but insists on coming back to the Despatch Box. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I shall answer the question: first, a Conservative Government nationalised water. I was a member of the Carlisle water committee, and we did not cut people off. Secondly, people do not volunteer. We shall be arguing tomorrow about whether we have a salary of £34,000 or £43,000, but I bet that none of us will have a pre-payment water meter in our house. People are being forced, under threat of court order, to have meters in their houses. They are told that, if they do not install a meter, their water will be disconnected. The only saving they can make is if the water is cut off.
The meters would be fine if they did not have the disconnection valve. It is often easier for the poor to pay small amounts frequently. That would be fine, but if someone is poor, the fault of, and punishment inherent in, the system is the self-disconnection valve, which they will use to cut off their water supply. It is a disgrace, and the Government should ban it. I hope that a Labour Government will.

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this short debate. As vice-chairman of the all-party water group, I have spent quite a lot of time during the past year or so listening hard to what people have been saying. We have heard from everyone—consumers, providers and plumbers—and their views have given us all a much broader sense of reality. I wholeheartedly welcome the Government's decision not to introduce compulsory metering for domestic customers. I know that companies can continue to use rateable values into the next century—we do not yet know how long into the next century that provision will continue.
We have just heard the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) talking about pre-payment meters. Perhaps he is not old enough to remember when households had pre-payment meters for everything and people put shillings—

Mr. Martlew: Or pennies.

Mrs. Peacock: Yes—or pennies. That system helped many families with limited means to budget much more carefully. As the hon. Member for Carlisle rightly said, it enabled them to pay in cash for small amounts of whatever they were using rather than have to pay big bills. There is still a place for pre-payment water meters. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about people cutting themselves off, but if the system helps them to budget better, I hope that that will not be an option—for many families, it will not be an option. Voluntary metering is an excellent idea for many households, particularly those with only one or two residents, to whom it is a great advantage.
I wonder what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friends on the Front Bench would have to say about my local Labour Member of the European Parliament, who is in the process of installing a swimming pool at his property, which is supposedly a farm worker's cottage, as he does not have time to go to the swimming baths. I hope that he has a meter when he starts to fill his pool, as it will take a lot of water.
The Government must be involved in all the discussions with companies about water metering and about exactly how the rateable value system will be replaced in the next century. A recent Office of Water Services survey showed that the majority of customers believe that pay-as-you-use is the fairest method of charging—it is for some people, but I cannot imagine where it carried out the survey or to whom it talked. Many people still believe that water is free and should never be charged for.
If people place water butts outside their houses, as people did for many years, water is free. It can be collected in the butt and, if people want to use it and

dispose of it without a drain, that is free, but people must realise that there is a charge if they want someone to collect it for them and take it away after they have used it. It is not free. We also realise, particularly after last year, that water does not automatically fall from the sky to fill our reservoirs. We must all try to conserve water whenever we can. Last year's drought also showed that we need better water management.
We heard about the number of disconnections that now take place. That number has fallen dramatically since 1988–89, when there were more than 15,000; in 1995–96, there were 5,800. I appreciate that the figure may not include those who, as the hon. Member for Carlisle said, disconnected themselves through necessity. We should not become over-enthusiastic, but there is a move in the right direction.
There should be no disconnections—as we have heard, they are not allowed in Scotland. I know that Scotland has different laws in many areas of daily life, but why should we have disconnections in England? I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will respond to that point when he winds up the debate.
We have spent many years ensuring that all housing has running water. If the water supply is cut off, we shall return to the wording of the original housing legislation and have to declare accommodation unfit for human habitation because it does not have running water. We must strive to avoid that situation in the late 1990s.
When we are discussing changes in charging for water and water supply, we must also study leakage and what action the water companies are taking to reduce such wastage. It is impossible to eliminate leakage—we would never be able to find a small drip in the millions of kilometres of pipes that run to people's properties—but it must be possible to eliminate many of the leaks that we have heard about, and many companies could do better. I understand that North West Water aims to reduce leakage to 22 per cent. by 2000. Yorkshire Water aims to reduce it to 20 per cent. in the longer term—I am not sure what that is and shall ask the company about it soon.
While those targets have to be applauded, leakage is still a great concern and a great waste of water. Given the climatic changes about which we have been hearing this week, we should study carefully how all our precious water is used. For too long we have accepted that water is there as of right and falls from the sky to fill up our reservoirs. We think that we can all turn on our showers, dishwashers and washing machines—we do not all have swimming pools—as if there were an unlimited supply. In the past year or 18 months, we have learnt that the supply is not unlimited, and we must consider that carefully.
I shall consider what has happened and what the water companies have done, and give a little credit where it is due. Since 1989, the water companies have replaced or relined 18,000 km of pipe. During that same period, 8,000 km of new mains have been added. When we compare that figure with the total amount of piping, we realise that it is only a start, but nevertheless they are taking the right route. A great deal of investment will be needed to achieve the targets set by the water companies, and I trust that that investment will be made as soon as possible.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who I regret is not in his place, spoke about the increase in water use by those with meters,


and said that meters did not help to reduce consumption. In fact, the Water Services Association paints a completely different picture. It says that, in all but one area—Severn Trent—there were reductions of 3.8 per cent. to 21.3 per cent. Severn Trent had a slight increase of 1.6 per cent. That stands on its head the figure that the hon. Gentleman gave.
It is important to note that the many people who do not have the opportunity to pay their water bills by direct debit are penalised when they want to pay them at the post office, where they have to pay an 80p charge. I checked with my local post office yesterday to see whether that charge had changed, but was told that it is still 80p. Many people cannot afford to pay that extra 80p. If there is no water company office, why should they pay it for the convenience of going to the post office? I urge, and my hon. Friend the Minister will urge, water companies to ensure that that charge is not passed on to the consumer; it is a deterrent to paying the bill. In Yorkshire, we do not like to part with any money we do not have to, and 80p every time we pay a bill is not on.
I mention last year's drought in any debate about water. I know that it is often said that, in 1995, there were only 60 drought orders—much fewer than in previous years—but my hon. Friend the Minister, who knows Yorkshire well, knows that West Yorkshire residents know all about drought orders and all the mismanagement last year. We had to have standpipes, we had to have our supplies interrupted and, unbelievably, our industry was told to relocate elsewhere.
Yorkshire Water's new management has started well by apologising for the mess and saying that it will set out to do better, but we all suffered and are still suffering. Today, I received a letter from a lady asking whether the rest of the world knows that we still have a hosepipe ban. I have written back to say that we do know, and the Minister knows.
I wish to draw attention to a paragraph in Ofwat's summary of its annual report of June 1996. It remarked:
Companies worked hard to avoid water restrictions. They acted quickly and generally maintained domestic supplies, despite high peak demands during the drought which were attributed to garden watering.
I am sure that companies did work hard, but in Yorkshire we were not enamoured of the way in which Yorkshire Water handled the crisis that we all suffered. As the company rightly says, it never cut off anyone's water, but the aggro of seeing the standpipes go up and of companies being told that they would have to close down every other day when most of them have continuous 24-hour processes, seven days a week, was difficult to put up with.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is not now present, who have always been most helpful in discussions on water issues. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ribble, South (Mr. Atkins), who was very helpful when he was an Environment Minister.
As my hon. Friend the Minister realises, we need to visit the Department and communicate the comments, frustrations and anxieties of our constituents. If we do not, we are not doing our job property. Although we may sometimes get hot under the collar, we have always been received courteously, and I believe that we are listened to.

In the past year or more, many people with varied interests in water have realised that, in our all-party water group, they have a powerful voice directly into Parliament and government.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: For many reasons, not least those connected with global warming, the way we use and pay for water is likely to become an increasingly important issue. The privatisation of the water industry, a natural monopoly, has inevitably brought problems for water users and the environment. Bills have soared, there are continuing water restrictions and a clean-up of our coastline and rivers is far from complete. Increasing demand and dry summers have also contributed to environmental problems as lakes and rivers have been drained to make up the shortfalls which too often have resulted from inefficient and short-sighted management. Obviously, supply and demand are out of synch.
The Labour motion argues that enforced compulsory water metering is wrong. If by that Labour means that metering would not of itself solve the problems, that is correct, so far as it goes. An attempt at universal metering would be expensive and unjust and would create a potential health hazard as more vulnerable families sought to save money by turning off the taps. Research carried out by Save the Children shows that 70 per cent. of low-income families with water meters attempt to use less water by sharing baths, washing clothes less often and even flushing the toilet less often. If the Labour party wishes to suggest that it constitutes a fit alternative to the Government, however, it must go beyond saying what it is against. Problems of water resources, the environmental and social impact of water use, pricing and financing mechanisms, all need imaginative solutions.
Privatisation of the water industry has coincided' with massive increases in water charges as the consumer has been forced to pay a large proportion of the costs of investment in infrastructure and environmental measures, not to mention profits. Since privatisation, water prices for domestic customers in England and Wales have increased by an average of 39 per cent. in real terms. In my constituency, and throughout the rest of the region served by South West Water, the price increase has been much greater. Since privatisation, average water bills have increased by more than 100 per cent. in the south-west.
We have also witnessed the development of huge regional variations in price. People living in some regions have been forced to pay an unfair share of maintaining what in my view is a national resource. Thus, in the south-west, the region that has suffered most from this privatisation, 3 per cent. of the country's population are being asked to pay for a clean-up of a third of the national coastline. Pensioners reliant on the state pension can be paying 10 per cent. or more of it on bills for which no extra help is available. It is no wonder that people are angry.
Labour must understand that the existing charging system is indefensible. New investment has been, and undoubtedly will continue to be, needed. However, company profits and dividends have increased drastically and the consumer carries too much of the financial burden of clean-up and other essential investment programmes. Since privatisation, the water companies' profits have increased on average by 167 per cent. Just yesterday,


South West Water announced an increase in dividends which again exceeded its increase in profits. Senior managers have received huge bonuses and huge pay-offs.
There is strong evidence to support the argument that, while customers have borne much of the cost of investment, company shareholders have received most of the financial benefits. The Consumers Association concluded that more than 80 per cent. of the companies' investment has been funded by increases in domestic consumer bills, despite the fact that we were told that privatisation was intended to allow greater access to private funds through borrowing and equity raising.
Within and across regions, these huge increases in water bills have affected different sectors of the community in radically differing ways. Many single pensioners, who use little water, are discriminated against by the fixed charge elements of water bills. A person living alone in the south-west, surviving on the state pension, may spend on average one tenth of his or her income on water bills. Yet on the whole, amid the rising bills, the water companies have failed to secure sustainable future water resources or to invest adequately in water conservation and distribution.
Shockingly, water companies such as Yorkshire Water have admitted to boosting dividends to shareholders by using money earmarked by the water regulator for leakage reduction, which consequently did not take place.
The issues are not merely about bills. The unsustainable policies of successive Governments of both colours have degraded Britain's rivers, lakes, reservoirs and underground aquifers. In some parts of the country, existing water supplies cannot cope with demand throughout the year. Abstraction of water from rivers and underground supplies is already causing major environmental problems.
Increasing water demand will surely lead to demands for further development, but it is estimated that more than one third of the clean water produced by water companies never even reaches the consumer, due to leakage. Investing in new water resources is costly for the consumer and the environment, so we must insist on starting by making better use of the water that we already have.
Liberal Democrat policy on water is clear. We want to protect the water needs of future generations, fairly share the cost of investment in environmental standards, provide higher standards of consumer service and make companies more accountable to those consumers.
There is obviously much to be done. The Government appear to have recognised some of the problems that their rash privatisation of this industry has caused, albeit belatedly and only after their by now ritual period of denial. They cannot fail to have noticed the theory that consumers appear to be paying more and more for less and less. It is difficult to tell people who face rising bills that they should use less water, let alone pay for water that they do not even receive.
We must strive for a fairer charging system and ensure that such a system encourages water conservation and promotes the efficient use of what is, ultimately, a scarce resource. To combine the two aims of promoting water efficiency and ensuring that an adequate supply of clean

water is available to all at a price that all consumers can afford is not easy. The present charging system clearly does neither. It is outdated, unfair and unpopular. Nobody argues that the system does not need changing. I dispute, however, whether the Government's sole response—water metering—is likely to be an overall answer. On the contrary, it creates as many problems as it attempts to solve. The only worse answer is the one that the Secretary of State gave: the indefinite use of the existing water rates system for properties that cannot be metered. That makes no sense.
For how long can valuations conducted in 1974, which by the early 1980s were regarded as outdated and unfair for local government taxation, be continued as the basis for water charging? That is why the Liberal Democrats seek a new basis of charging that is fairer and more up to date than rateable values. At the same time, we want to ease the unfair burden of the present system, coupled with rising water charges, which is placed on vulnerable members of the community.
An alternative charging basis is needed. At present, more than nine out of 10 customers' water bills are based on rateable values. That method is clearly unfair as it bears little relationship to consumers' ability to pay. It is also increasingly anomalous, given that rateable values are based on information collected in the 1970s. Although the council tax is far from perfect as a means of raising local taxation, it is at least based on a recent assessment of property values and recognises situations in which one adult lives alone. That system would enable vulnerable households to be targeted by providing extra support through the social fund in cases of genuine need.
As we heard from the Secretary of State again today, the Government try to argue that some low-income groups may be adversely affected by such a measure. That problem can be tackled by phasing the changes in and designing the charging structure to ensure that such a move does not impact on middle or low-income groups. It would depend on the charging structure used, which is not an inevitable outcome of using the council tax band. That would merely provide the basis for the structure, not the level of tiering to be applied.
That system, however, will not solve the problem of water shortages, which is why I support the introduction of stricter controls on the water companies to reduce leakage. Rising consumption, diminishing returns and the threat of global warming mean that leakage control alone can be only a short-term solution. It can reverse the current problem, but it cannot continue to meet rising demand indefinitely for the future. Leakage control can be only one component of a comprehensive demand management strategy. Even taken with tighter building standards and water byelaws, in the long run the problem of water demand exceeding supply will return.
In addition, targeted domestic metering will undoubtedly be another component of such a demand management strategy. Metering makes clear to consumers the value of the resource being used and provides an incentive to conserve water and prevent leaks. But for both economic and social reasons, the Liberal Democrats do not support the introduction of universal compulsory metering. It would be staggeringly expensive, and the money could be better spent on improving water efficiency elsewhere. The best way forward is to combine a system based on council tax bands with compulsory water metering only for those who consume excessive


amounts of water for non-essential uses, such as swimming pools and garden sprinklers, or in circumstances where water supplies are under stress.
Under present charging arrangements, the costs of meeting peak demand, including for such non-essential uses as garden sprinklers and swimming pools, are averaged across all users. It is only right that those who use a great deal of water for non-essential purposes such as those should pay for the privilege. On a hot, dry summer's day, garden sprinklers can use more water than the whole industrial demand in some regions, so metering should be targeted on those non-essential uses.
In areas where there is plenty of water, universal compulsory metering would simply impose extra costs. But in areas where water supplies are under stress, general metering might be considered, provided that certain conditions are met. Where metering is introduced, particularly on a compulsory basis, the needs of vulnerable members of the community must be protected by reforming the tariff structure—for example, through a rising block tariff. We want a progressive tariff structure to meet essential water needs at low cost, the abolition of standing charges and assistance to introduce water conservation measures. In cases where special needs can be shown, help would need to be given with the payment of bills.
For people who are not heavy consumers of water for non-essential uses and whom we would not require to install a meter, additional reforms to the current system are needed if it is to be made fairer. The regulatory regime must be toughened and reformed. We aim to share the costs and benefits of investment more fairly between companies and their shareholders and customers. The creation of long-term capital assets should not be financed so heavily from current earnings. The regulator should require each company to finance a higher proportion of investment through borrowing. The level should be set for each company individually, taking its circumstances into account, including the economic life of the assets being financed.
The lower price cap that Ofwat has now implemented will have some effect in that respect, combined with the new EC directive. In the past, many companies have made higher profits than Ofwat anticipated. Some companies have chosen to share their efficiency savings with their customers through customer rebates and discretionary investment. Welsh Water announced a rebate of £9 a year for the next five years, and South West Water has just set a rebate of £10. There is no reason why the regulator cannot force all water companies to redistribute higher-than-expected profits when, through efficiency gains or other reasons, they achieve higher returns than those on which Ofwat based its pricing figures. The companies and their shareholders should naturally be rewarded for their success and encouraged to continue it, but so should other stakeholders in the enterprise: their customers.
Furthermore, unreasonable costs should not be imposed on regions with high infrastructure costs and major environmental challenges. I have already mentioned the problem in my area. The chairman of the South West Water consumers committee believes that the average bill will rise a further £150 per year if the problem is not dealt with. The problem exists not just in the south-west. The cost of meeting the urban waste water directive will soon fall on the customers of North West Water, Wessex Water

and Yorkshire Water. Lead will be a major concern in the north-west and nitrates will have an impact on areas such as that covered by Anglian Water.
Under the current system, all those problems are likely to lead to increasing regional differentials and bills at various times, as the cost of cleaning up regional problems falls virtually exclusively on consumers. To help reduce such differing regional water charges, a new independent water services trust should be established, funded by a 2 per cent. levy on water profits. It should be used to subsidise water projects of national environmental importance. That should be in addition to the benefits that I have already mentioned of requiring more to be funded from borrowing and equity raising.
That is a more sensible approach than Labour's one-off windfall tax which, incidentally, might raise water prices. It would also directly benefit water customers. The water services trust could also take on the role of a water efficiency promoter, assisting households and small and medium-sized enterprises with water efficiency measures. That would also help to drive down bills.
Much could be done to ensure that the cost of providing clean water is decided more equitably. There is clearly still more to do. Compulsory water metering is not the answer. To that limited extent, Labour is right. But it is time to stop concentrating on the problems, which are well known to hon. Members on both sides of the House. We must now strive for solutions. Our amendment suggests such solutions. In this debate, the Labour party has been entirely vacuous in failing to deal with the real problems that the industry and consumers face.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: This debate has been not only vacuous but specious. The Labour party attacked the Government's policy of enforcing compulsory water metering, yet it has been said time and again in this debate that there is no Government policy of compulsory water metering. Watch my lips: no compulsory water metering.
What is so astonishing about compulsory water meters? They have them in Belgium, Greece, Italy, Austria, Portugal, Denmark, France, Sweden and Spain—and that is just in western Europe. Norway is the only country in western Europe, other than the United Kingdom, that does not have compulsory water meters.
Labour Members are particularly blinkered in relation to water meters. They have no ideas about how we can improve the water delivery infrastructure, reduce water leakage or reduce water loss in the home. This week, a number of magazines, including Nature, have said that there will be a growing water shortage in the United Kingdom and in the whole of northern Europe in the years to come.
Labour Members have referred to the cost of water metering. However, the statistics do not bear this out. In 1995–96, the average water bill was £267 metered or £211 unmetered. In the coming years, however, the figures will be reversed and homes with water meters will have smaller bills.
Labour Members have not addressed the issue of water wastage in the home. It has been shown that, where there are meters, there is a saving of water of between 10 and 15 per cent. It is not because people do not flush the loo,


as the alarmists on the Labour Benches have suggested—it is because people do not use half-loaded dishwashers and half-loaded washing machines; they use water sensibly. That has to be one answer to the nation's water shortage.
I was pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment was able to give me and a company in my constituency, Armitage Shanks, an assurance that we would not bow to pressure from the Europeans who would have us introduce their system of toilet flushing. In France alone, 500 million gallons of water are lost every year because of its sub-standard toilets.
I congratulate two water companies in my constituency—Severn Trent is one of eight companies that have introduced water meters free of charge and the South Staffordshire Water Company is looking at a new charging method based on property characteristics, which the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) would welcome.
I have often spoken about the need for us to look at a whole new approach to the way in which we conserve water and transport water in the United Kingdom. It is a dream of mine—as I suspect the hon. Member for South-East Staffordshire (Mr. Jenkins) knows—to see a canal opened up in Lichfield. A canal would bring joy to the people of Lichfield and it would be a cheap means of transporting water from north to south.
This whole debate is specious because it is based on a false premise. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) that his accusation that it is the Government's policy to have compulsory water metering is a lie, but the hon. Gentleman would not withdraw his accusation. I was shocked.
Has new Labour attacked the heart of Conservative party policy? No, because compulsory water metering is not the Government's policy. Has new Labour addressed the problems of water wastage in the home? No, it has put forward no new ideas in the debate. Has new Labour acknowledged the impact of a changing climate, with increasing droughts? No, it does not have a commitment to the future.
Has new Labour, through its Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, shown some integrity tonight? Did the hon. Gentleman withdraw his accusations about Government policy? No, instead he ploughed through his poorly written brief and accepted very few interventions. Has new Labour, despite criticising the water companies for being privatised, said that it will commit to nationalising them? No, it recognises the past underinvestment in the water infrastructure by the old-fashioned nationalised industry and it wants the same thing.
We have heard nothing but empty rhetoric from Labour Members. They have empty minds and an empty future. New Labour has no vision for our future. New Labour with tired old bearded faces. New Labour: the new danger facing our environment.

Mr. David Hanson: The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) cannot have been at the same debate as me—in fact, I do not recall seeing him. He

has missed the point completely about the Labour party's proposals. We are concerned about the prospect of compulsory water metering. In the short time available to me, I shall cite evidence that the Labour party's premises are not false.
For example, in April last year, the Secretary of State for the Environment answered a question from the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes), and made it clear that he had a preference for water metering. He said:
The Government believe that metering is in the long term the best basis for paying for water … It is fair and equitable in that it relates charges directly to the amount of water used. It gives customers some control over their bills."—[Official Report, 4 April 1995; Vol. 257, c. 1054.]
The Secretary of State ruled out the possibility of allowing council tax to be used as a method of payment for water-based bills. The motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is clear. If the Government believe that water metering is in the best interests of consumers, ultimately they will reach a situation in which water metering occurs on a voluntary, and later on a compulsory, basis. Water metering will be the way in which water companies will get people to pay their bills.
Water metering is not an acceptable way forward. It ignores a number of key points. First, the cost of implementing water metering has been avoided. In my area of Welsh Water, it will cost some £125 to install each water meter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said, some £4 billion will be spent on capital expenditure to introduce water metering.
Secondly, water metering will be socially regressive. Regardless of what Government Members say, water metering is socially divisive, is a regressive way of paying, and will not benefit the poorer members of our community, who will find themselves rationing water and rationing their money to pay for their water.
For example, the British Medical Association has found that families with an income of £100 to £125 per week spend 4 per cent. of their weekly budget on water, while the national average is only 1 per cent. The Save the Children Fund has said that it fears that water metering will result in poorer sanitary conditions, less cleaning and a poorer quality of life for people on low incomes.

Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hanson: No, not in the short time available to me, because the hon. Gentleman has already spoken.
The cost of implementing and operating water metering will be about £500 million a year. The Government will move towards water metering, and that is not acceptable. I would rather see a much stricter control of water, such as the control of leakage. In Welsh Water, 64 million gallons of water are lost every day of the week as a result of leakage—that is 45,000 gallons every minute. Almost 30 per cent. of the water distributed by Welsh Water is lost daily through leakage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has made a number of suggestions, including universal domestic recycling, better improvements in relation to shower installation, lower-volume shower heads, and efficient washing machines. There are fair and equitable ways for us to save water, and they do not include water metering.
Water metering is unfair and unjust, but the Government are edging slowly towards it. After 2000, despite the assurances that have been given, the Government will—if the Conservatives remain in government, which they will not—continue to force unwelcome water metering on the British public.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: In the five minutes for which I intend to detain the House, I start by saying that this debate has been based on a false premise, and, from the remarks by the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), we now understand what that is. The hon. Gentleman said that the Government have a preference—I think that was the word he used—for seeing water charging done by metering, but it is not true that that preference also entails a hidden agenda to make metering compulsory.
To be fair, I can understand the hon. Gentleman's suspicion, but the Secretary of State has said, over and over again, that there is no hidden agenda. Despite what a cynical public sometimes say, Members of Parliament, on both sides of the House, do not lie. I cannot remember a time in my 13 years in the House when such a categorical assurance from the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box has been rejected by his opposite number. I hope I have not raised the temperature unduly, but I found that rejection surprising and saddening, and it did not do much for the reputation of the House or the quality of debate.
The principal problem is that there is no ideal way to charge for water. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) suggested that some water companies seem to think that they can charge for the privilege of sending water down their pipes, but in a complex society, the water companies cannot take water out of the sky. It must be processed, and if sewage was not removed from properties, people would have problems. The distribution of clean, wholesome, potable water and the disposal of sewage are complex and expensive operations.
However the charges are made, whether by ratable values, by subvention in the social security system or by metering, the solution will not be easy or popular. For that reason, the water companies bear a high responsibility to gain the confidence of the people they serve. It is asking a bit much for companies that appear to charge for one of the essentials of life to make themselves popular, but they can be respected, and they can ensure, by the service that they deliver to customers, that they have a reputation for competence and fairness, so that people understand that water has to be paid for. The companies may have to sell a difficult concept, such as water metering, and the public will accept it only if their local water company is conducting its business in a wholesome and potable way.
I have the disadvantage of coming from the south-west and having my water supplied by South West Water. It would take far more than the three minutes I have left to begin to explain the horrors of South West Water. By any measurement, it is a remarkable company, which has shown a stunning disregard for the sentiments and feelings of the people it is supposed to serve.
Its activities include little things such as pouring inappropriate chemicals into reservoirs and allowing cryptosporidium to break out in parts of the water supply earlier this year, so that large sums of compensation had

to be paid by South West Water to the 100,000 households affected. At the height of the drought last year, people telephoned me to say that no water was coming through their taps. We know why now—because South West Water had emptied billions of gallons from a reservoir into the sea. Against such a background, people do not develop much confidence in the mechanisms that the company might use for charging for water.
Only yesterday, we discovered that the managing director of South West Water, who resigned shortly after the cryptosporidium problem—a prosecution is now pending, so I shall say no more—has been given a severance deal totalling £800,000. That mind-boggling deal is made up of £226,000 of basic severance, extra pension contributions of £100,000, non-cash benefits of £10,000, a full salary of £109,000 and a performance-related bonus of £9,000.
Not many issues unite the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras and me, but misery acquaints a man with strange, bearded bedfellows. Best of all the payments in that package is the £50,000 paid to the managing director for making his services and expertise available to win foreign customers. That is money well spent, because if the company gives him £50,000, he may not feel the need to go abroad.
What on earth can be said about a water company that can treat people in the way they have been treated in the south-west? The company did everything in its considerable power to appeal against the water charges that had been efficiently pegged by the water regulator. I simply do not have the words at my command in the next 60 seconds to tell the House about the outrage, disgust, anger and sheer fury of people in the west country. They are paying the highest combined water and sewerage charges in the country, at the same time as somebody is paid £800,000 for being a lamentable failure.
We have had a short debate, and I do not expect my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to respond to my points tonight. I hope it will be an encouragement and threat to my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment if I say that I shall write to them to suggest certain initiatives that might be taken to deal with the situation. I do not expect a reply tonight, but my letter will not be late.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: It is interesting that two of the three Conservative Back Benchers who have participated in the debate have been driven to do so by exasperation at their experience of their local water companies. That gives the lie to the wealth of rhetoric, rather than considered argument, that we had from the Secretary of State earlier.
Today we have focused on one aspect of the water industry—the charging, or rather, the overcharging, of its domestic customers. What do we pay for when we pay our water bills? After all, we expect a lot from the water industry, including clean water; safe sewerage; enough water to cultivate land; unpolluted river systems, for fish and flowers; water-based leisure activities; security from flood and drought; and efficient road drainage. That is quite a list. It flies in the face of economic reason, and the costings, to think that the most effective way to pay for the overall management of the water environment is according to the amount of water that comes out of domestic taps.
The cost of drinking water is less than half the overall cost of the whole industry. The fixed costs of supplying drinking water are four times greater than the costs related to supplying the volume of drinking water; and, as Which? said in a publication this week,
basing water charges solely on the volume of water used does not make sense.
Ofwat has published a little leaflet that puts a cost on each use of water in the home, but it would do better if it published some facts about what we actually pay for when we pay the bills from the water industry.
The Environment Select Committee is considering water conservation at the moment. It is becoming clear that there is total confusion between the need to measure for the purposes of good management and the need to measure to charge, and the Secretary of State made that point again today. The two are quite different.
The industry should, of course, measure what goes where, if only to discover where the leaks are. Nobody suggests that, because health services are available to everyone who needs them, doctors should not record how many patients come to them with what problems; but that does not mean that each patient has to pay extra every time he sees a doctor—at least, not yet. Careful district metering is the key to careful leakage detection, as the Environment Committee has discovered.
We have heard much today about water metering and conservation, but the Government have said nothing about the most cost-effective way of achieving those aims—and they have put cost-benefit analyses into every line of every piece of environment legislation. The contributions from the hon. Members for Truro (Mr. Taylor) and for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) show just how costs affect customer attitudes to the water industry.
As my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) pointed out, water metering is very expensive. Leaving aside the cost of installation—about £200—and the cost of replacement every seven years and of repair every time the meters get grit in them, the extra costs of maintenance, reading and billing are estimated at £27 per year.
My figures show that, through metering, it costs £1.95 to save 1 cu m a year. According to the National Rivers Authority, if one compares metering with other methods of water conservation, it is seven times more expensive than saving the same amount of water through leakage reduction, and four times the cost of saving the same amount of water using water-efficient devices in the home. That does not take into account the minimal cost of common-sense measures such as installing water butts in every garden to catch the run-off from roofs and gutters.
A specialist in the water industry—I will not embarrass him by naming him—told me:
I have no time for those"—
such as the Secretary of State—
who advocate looking at demand management from an economic viewpoint, and then ignore the messages which do not suit their agenda.

It is a sign of the regulator's obsession with metering that last year's enormous peak demand for water for gardens was met by calls to meter everything. He did not question whether we should pour gallons of drinking water on to grass.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Jackson: No, because the hon. Gentleman has just come into the Chamber.
The same obsession with metering has led the Government and the regulator to fail to take action on every other water conservation front. As hon. Members have pointed out, water leakage is worse now than at the time of privatisation. The Secretary of State mentioned the revision of the water byelaws, which could be used to upgrade standards of water efficiency and improve the design of water appliances in the home. They have been awaiting upgrading since 1992. This afternoon, the Secretary of State said that he will announce the members of the Committee that will consider the byelaws. He has been promising to do that for four years.
Research into water-saving toilet devices by the Building Research Establishment was well under way, but it was shelved by the Government in 1982, because it placed greater emphasis on other ways of conserving water—such as metering. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras detailed the way in which the water conservation legislation, which was supported by every member of the all-party parliamentary group—I pay tribute to hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) for her contribution to that group-was rubbished by those on the Government Front Bench. Only yesterday, the Government had an opportunity in the housing grants legislation to introduce a grant aid scheme for water efficiency in the home, but again they failed to act.
Is water metering is fair? The Secretary of State again parroted the phrase, "You pay for what you use"—the old poll tax argument. However, that approach is distinctly unfair when we are talking about essentials.
Some months ago, the parliamentary group decided to explore which charging system reflects most fairly people's ability to pay. We asked Ofwat and the water companies what research they had conducted in that area, and for their comparative range of billing on rateable value and metered charges. We immediately discovered how little work had been done in that area.
Ofwat conducted its only study in 1992, and that is now out of date. In its recent document issued to water companies about efficiency action, Ofwat does not refer once to the social impact of proposed efficiency measures. Even Anglian Water—a company that has embarked on more systematic work—admits:
Income was not one of the criteria used in setting up the programme".
It was left to the Save the Children Fund, the British Medical Association, the National Federation of Housing Associations and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux to point out what water metering means for poor families, who must try to cut down on water usage in the home by not flushing the toilet so often, sharing baths or not allowing the children to play with water.
Our exercise has shown that both billing systems—metering and property value—have a correlation with household incomes, but for different reasons. The property value link with income is well understood. With a metered supply, those with higher incomes have higher bills, as they are less likely to cut down on water usage. Poorer families have lower bills, because they must cut down on their water usage as they do not have the money to pay. Pensioners—among whom water meters are popular—try particularly hard to economise around the home. They worry even if extra water usage is essential for their health care regime. That concerns Labour Members.
Two classes of customers stand out as exceptions: first, large, poorer families who have low incomes and high bills; secondly, single wealthy individuals or couples, perhaps with more than one house, who have low bills and high incomes. At the top of the rateable value scale, the folk with large houses and gardens make a killing if they switch to a meter—even if they run their sprinklers all day in the summer, that amounts to a mere 4 per cent. of usage when spread over the year. Savings for some must be paid for by others.
Conservative Members have congratulated water companies on installing free meters, but those costs must be met by someone—by the 92 per cent. of customers who are paying for water in the usual way. The public should be warned about the regulator's latest attempt to alter the rateable value charge. In his recent tariff reform document, he states:
the overall revenue from unmeasured customers remains the same, but the range between the highest and lowest bills is reduced".
In everyday language, it means that the poor will pay more, and the rich will get another handout.
Nobody wants water metering. By last autumn, only 20 households in Scotland took up the metering option. Ralph Symons, an eminent pensioner from Huddersfield, has collected 47,000 signatures from people protesting at Ofwat's failure to introduce proper water conservation measures. It makes no mention of metering. Has there ever been a petition in favour of metering?
The fact is that water should not have been privatised in the way it was. The obsession of the Secretary of State and of the regulator with water metering is both misguided and anti-social. It is driven by a dogmatic desire to make us view water as simply another commodity: like a pint of milk or a pound of butter. It is an irresponsible attempt to justify irresponsible legislation.
When it comes to water and sewerage, there is no freedom to choose, and there can be no competitive market. We desperately need a new approach to the industry that puts the public first; recognises the social and environmental obligations; understands the uniqueness of water and sewerage as a utility; and, above all, brings fairness back to the industry's financial management. Universal compulsory metering has no part to play in that approach.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): It would be churlish of me not to begin by welcoming the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) to the Opposition Front Bench—at least on this occasion. Her great interest in the subject is well known.
I congratulate her on the good judgment she displayed this evening in choosing not to pick up any of the specious arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) in opening the debate. The hon. Gentleman's argument that there is some sort of secret agenda to enforce compulsory water metering was not sustained by Labour Front Benchers or Back Benchers during the debate.
The hon. Gentleman said at one stage that we were embarking on a quest for the holy grail in seeking water metering. The longer I listened to the hon. Gentleman, the more I thought that he was embarking on a quest for the holy grail—not that I see him in terms of Arthurian legend.
The hon. Member for Hillsborough has been given the accolade of queen of water by her hon. Friends; she would no doubt make a comely Queen Guinevere. However, I do not see the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras as a King Arthur, or even as a Sir Galahad or a Sir Lancelot. In his performance this evening, he more closely resembled one of those mediaeval abbots who suddenly discovered the remains of King Arthur when there was a need for funds to pay for rebuilding the monastery. That is the status of the hon. Gentleman's points about compulsory water metering.
Let me make the position absolutely clear. We believe that water metering is a matter for the water companies. We believe that there are advantages in water metering, but that it is a matter for the companies. There is no secret agenda to enforce compulsory water metering.
As the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras should know, we have allowed water companies to continue to use rateable values after 2000. If there was a secret agenda, that decision would be wholly inconsistent with it. The hon. Gentleman did not seem to know that we had taken that decision. If he had known, he might have taken a different view, and he might not have embarked on the ridiculous charade of his speech.

Mr. Dobson: As far as I can recall, I welcomed the statement by the Secretary of State a year or more ago that rateable values could be used. However, the Opposition look forward to changing the law as he promised to do, because he has not changed it yet.

Mr. Clappison: I find that an interesting remark, because, as Hansard will clearly show, the hon. Gentleman used what he described as the proscription on the use of rateable values from 2000 as an argument in support of his contention that there was a secret agenda to impose compulsory water metering. Apparently he knew all along that that was not the case, and that rateable values could be used after 2000.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: Is it sufficient that the Secretary of State has made a speech in the House, or is there a need for legislation? That is my understanding.

Mr. Clappison: Indeed, that is the case. My right hon. Friend made his announcement in April 1995, and he made it clear that rateable values could be used after 2000. The hon. Lady will be unable to rescue the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras on this occasion, because we have yet to hear from him or her what Labour's policy will be on water charging. They have asked us questions,


but we have heard nothing from them. We heard repeated challenges from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, but we heard nothing about what his policy would be.
We had some interesting contributions by other hon. Members, who plainly did not follow the line of argument of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) was concerned about budget pre-payment units, but, as he was rightly told by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, they are a matter of choice. Consumers can choose to have them, and they can later be removed. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but it is entirely a matter for consumers.
The hon. Gentleman may know that the Ofwat National Consumer Council has endorsed budget pre-payments, and that surveys show that 80 or 90 per cent. of customers are in favour of them.

Mr. Martlew: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Clappison: I will not give way, because time is getting on. The hon. Gentleman had plenty of time, and I wish to reply to other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock), another hon. Member who is very interested in water issues.
She battles hard on behalf of her constituents, and I note her comments about the drought. She is particularly concerned about low-income families, and she wanted a specific response on disconnections. She will be pleased to know that disconnections are on a downward trend. However, there is still a need for disconnection to be available to deal with those who can pay but refuse to do so.
My hon. Friend will know that low-income families are dealt with under special provisions by the Department of Social Security, and that there is a provision in each company's water licence that the supply of water to domestic premises should not be disconnected if the person liable to pay the charges informs the company that he or she is applying for help from the Department of Social Security. I hope that that allays my hon. Friend's concerns.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) mentioned the south-west, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), in his usual robust terms. The hon. Member for Truro referred to the clear-up in the south-west. I hope that he welcomes the fact—I know that he is interested in environmental statistics and information—that statistics have been released which show a marked improvement in bathing water quality and river water quality, and the high standard of drinking water quality. He will know of the connection between that and the programme of investment that is being carried out.
The hon. Member for Truro is concerned about price increases in the south-west. I hope that he will join me in welcoming the fact that prices in the south-west, as elsewhere, will be limited. In the case of the south-west, prices up to 2000 will be limited to 1 per cent. in real terms, and after 2000 there will be no increase in real terms. I hope that the hon. Gentleman welcomes that limit.

The hon. Gentleman knows the problems in his proposal for using council tax bands. He is at least putting forward a proposal, which distinguishes him from Labour Members, but it is, unfortunately, a bad proposal. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear—the hon. Gentleman himself said that he was particularly concerned about poorer families—the Liberal Democrats' policy would lead to arbitrary changes, especially for people in the lower band. As the Consumers Association said:
Many low-income families could experience a considerable increase in their bills with this switch.
That is why the hon. Gentleman's policy is a bad idea.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) helpfully mentioned the extent of metering throughout Europe and in many other countries, including countries with socialist Governments—a point that seems to have eluded the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. My hon. Friend battled for manufacturers in his constituency, such as Armitage Shanks and GEC Alsthom. They and many others will be interested in the current review of water byelaws. Clearly there is some scope for improving efficiency and reducing waste, contamination and the like.
The hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) was concerned about poorer families. I remind him of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his opening remarks. It is important that lower-income families should be taken account of, and it is important that water companies should choose tariff structures that are adapted to the needs of lower-income families. That is an important point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge made a valuable contribution in his own way. He too emphasised that there is no hidden agenda; it is as plain as a pikestaff that there is not. What is clear is that the Labour party has no agenda at all. One only has to look at the recently released outline Labour manifesto to see the extent of Labour's disregard for the environment. The environment is not mentioned in the introduction, it does not have a chapter to itself, and it does not even have a heading within a chapter. It is buried away in a few short sentences in one paragraph. The manifesto does not mention the importance of sustainable development.
I know that the hon. Member for Hillsborough, who is so interested in water, will be disappointed by the fact that there is no mention of water in the outline manifesto. If the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras was present when these matters were being discussed, he must have bitten his tongue. I am sure that the hon. Lady cannot have been there, because she certainly would have wanted to say something about water, and she would have been foaming if the subject had been missed out.
The hon. Lady and other Labour Members who are water enthusiasts can take some consolation from the fact that they are not alone in their plight. There is no mention of water and the importance of water conservation for the environment, sustainable development, air quality, climate change or biodiversity. The only mention I could find of biodiversity was a promise of a free vote when enacting legislation to ban hunting with hounds, which is rather different from our idea of biodiversity.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: The point about the environment is that it would be part of every Department's policy under a Labour Government.

Mr. Clappison: Judging by the efforts in the manifesto, the environment will have to struggle to


become part of the policy of a Labour Department of the Environment. It is clear that Labour has no interest in the subject.
That is the problem with the Labour party. That is the real risk and danger it presents: that the environment will be neglected and will fall behind in the list of priorities, as it did in terms of investment when Labour was last in power. Let me remind Labour Members that the last Labour Government cut investment in the water industry. They slashed it almost in half in the second part of the 1970s, and, in 1976, they were forced to impose a six-month moratorium on water authority capital expenditure.
The water industry is now spending far more than it did then—some two or three times more a year. That investment will provide higher standards: better drinking water, better river water—river water quality is improving according to any standard—better bathing water and, indeed, better quality all round. That real improvement results from a successful quality. Opposition Members will have to think again, and come up with something a bit more convincing than the policies that they have advocated.
As we made clear in our amendment, we believe that water conservation is an important issue. We are committed to the environment; we are committed to the single issue of water conservation, just as we are committed on all the other great international and national issues. It seems, however, that the Labour party has no interest in, and no policy on, climate change, biodiversity, air quality, forestry or any of the other important national and international obligations that we have taken on and are fulfilling.
The longer the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras spoke, the plainer it became that he had no ideas. He refused to say at any stage how he would charge for water: he had no idea whatsoever. He refused to say anything about that, even when intervened on by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold)—who, had he remained in the Chamber for the whole of the hon. Gentleman's speech, would not have heard a word about water charging.
It is obvious from what the hon. Gentleman said that the Labour party is bankrupt in regard to the environment. This fictitious, ridiculous motion, based on a charade, is plain evidence that Labour neglects the environment, does not know what sustainable development is, and has not the commitment that the Conservative party has.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:

The House divided: Ayes 269, Noes 288.

Division No. 181]
[7.01 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Baldry, Tony


Alexander, Richard
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Bates, Michael


Amess, David
Batiste, Spencer


Arbuthnot, James
Bellingham, Henry


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bendall, Vivian


Ashby, David
Beresford, Sir Paul


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Body, Sir Richard


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas





Booth, Hartley
Gillan, Cheryl


Boswell, Tim
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Gorst, Sir John


Bowis, John
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brandreth, Gyles
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brazier, Julian
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bright, Sir Graham
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Hannam, Sir John


Budgen, Nicholas
Hargreaves, Andrew


Burt, Alistair
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Butcher, John
Hawkins, Nick


Butler, Peter
Hawksley, Warren


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hayes, Jerry


Carrington, Matthew
Heald, Oliver


Carttiss, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Cash, William
Hendry, Charles


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Hicks, Sir Robert


Churchill, Mr
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Clappison, James
Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Horam, John


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Coe, Sebastian
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Congdon, David
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Conway, Derek
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunter, Andrew


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Jack, Michael


Couchman, James
Jenkin, Bernard


Cran, James
Jessel, Toby


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Keen, Alan


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Day, Stephen
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Khabra, Piara S


Devlin, Tim
Kirkwood, Archy


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lewis, Terry


Dover, Den
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Duncan, Alan
Litherland, Robert


Duncan Smith, Iain
Livingstone, Ken


Dunn, Bob
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dykes, Hugh
Llwyd, Elfyn


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Loyden, Eddie


Elletson, Harold
Lynne, Ms Liz


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
McAllion, John


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
McAvoy, Thomas


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
McCartney, Ian


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
McCartney, Robert


Evennett, David
Macdonald, Calum


Faber, David
McFall, John


Fabricant, Michael
McKelvey, William


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Mackinlay, Andrew


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
McLeish, Henry


Fishburn, Dudley
Maclennan, Robert


Forman, Nigel
McNamara, Kevin


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
MacShane, Denis


Forth, Eric
McWilliam, John


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Madden, Max


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Maddock, Diana


French, Douglas
Mahon, Alice


Fry, Sir Peter
Mandelson, Peter


Gale, Roger
Marek, Dr John


Gallie, Phil
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Gardiner, Sir George
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Gamier, Edward
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)






Martlew, Eric
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Meacher, Michael
Short, Clare


Meale, Alan
Simpson, Alan


Michael, Alun
Skinner, Dennis


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Milburn, Alan
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Miller, Andrew
Smyth, The Reverend Martin


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Snape, Peter


Morgan, Rhodri
Soley, Clive


Morley, Elliot
Spearing, Nigel


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Spellar, John


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Mudie, George
Steinberg, Gerry


Mullin, Chris
Stevenson, George


Murphy, Paul
Stott, Roger


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Strang, Dr. Gavin


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Straw, Jack


O'Hara, Edward
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Olner, Bill
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


O'Neill, Martin
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Timms, Stephen


Paisley, The Reverend Ian
Tipping, Paddy


Parry, Robert
Touhig, Don


Pearson, Ian
Trickett, Jon


Pickthall, Colin
Turner, Dennis


Pike, Peter L
Tyler, Paul


Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)
Vaz, Keith


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Wallace, James


Primarolo, Dawn
Walley, Joan


Purchase, Ken
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wareing, Robert N


Radics, Giles
Watson, Mike


Randall, Stuart
Welsh, Andrew


Raynsford, Nick
Wicks, Malcolm


Reid, Dr John
Wigley, Dafydd


Rendel, David
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Wilson, Brian


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Winnick, David


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Wise, Audrey


Rogers, Allan
Worthington, Tony


Rooney, Terry
Wray, Jimmy


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wright, Dr Tony


Rowlands, Ted
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Salmond, Alex



Sedgemore, Brian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sheerman, Barry
Mr. David Clelland and Mr. Greg Pope.


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bradley, Keith


Adams, Mrs Irene
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Ainger, Nick
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Allen, Graham
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Alton, David
Byers, Stephen


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Callaghan, Jim


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Ashton, Joe
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Austin-Walker, John
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Campbell-Savours, D N


Barron, Kevin
Canavan, Dennis


Battle, John
Cann, Jamie


Bayley, Hugh
Chidgey, David


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Chisholm, Malcolm


Bell, Stuart
Church, Judith


Bennett, Andrew F
Clapham, Michael


Benton, Joe
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Berry, Roger
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Betts, Clive
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Coffey, Ann


Blunkett, David
Cohen, Harry


Boateng, Paul
Connarty, Michael





Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hutton, John


Corbett, Robin
Illsley, Eric


Corbyn, Jeremy
Ingram, Adam


Corston, Jean
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cousins, Jim
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cummings, John
Jamieson, David


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Janner, Greville


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)


Cunningham, Roseanna
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jowell, Tessa


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Denham, John
Key, Robert


Dewar, Donald
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dixon, Don
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dobson, Frank
Knapman, Roger


Donohoe, Brian H
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dowd, Jim
Knight Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Knight Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Eagle, Ms Angela
Knox, Sir David


Eastham, Ken
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Etherington, Bill
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Lament, Rt Hon Norman


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Fatchett, Derek
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Faulds, Andrew
Legg, Barry


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Leigh, Edward


Fisher, Mark
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Flynn, Paul
Lidington, David


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Lord, Michael


Foulkes, George
Luff, Peter


Fraser, John
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fyfe, Maria
MacKay, Andrew


Galbraith, Sam
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Galloway, George
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gapes, Mike
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Garrett, John
Madel, Sir David


Gerrard, Neil
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Malone, Gerald


Godman, Dr Norman A
Mans, Keith


Godsiff, Roger
Marland, Paul


Golding, Mrs Llin
Marlow, Tony


Gordon, Mildred
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mates, Michael


Grocott, Bruce
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Gunnell, John
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Hain, Peter
Merchant, Piers


Hall, Mike
Mills, Iain


Hanson, David
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hardy, Peter
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Moate, Sir Roger


Harvey, Nick
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Henderson, Doug
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Heppell, John
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hinchliffe, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Hodge, Margaret
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hoey, Kate
Norris, Steve


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Home Robertson, John
Ottaway, Richard


Hood, Jimmy
Page, Richard


Hoon, Geoffrey
Paice, James


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hoyle, Doug
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pawsey, James


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Pickles, Eric


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)






Porter, David (Waveney)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Powell, William (Corby)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Rathbone, Tim
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Thomason, Roy


Richards, Rod
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Riddick, Graham
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Robathan, Andrew
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Thurnham, Peter


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Tracey, Richard


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Tredinnick, David


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Trend, Michael


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Trotter, Neville


Sackville, Tom
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Viggers, Peter


Shaw, David (Dover)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Walden, George


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)



Waller, Gary


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)
Ward, John


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shersby, Sir Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Sims, Sir Roger
Watts, John


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wells, Bowen


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Whitney, Ray


Speed, Sir Keith
Whittingdale, John


Spencer, Sir Derek
Widdecombe, Ann


Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Spink, Dr Robert
Wilkinson, John


Spring, Richard
Willetts, David


Sproat, Iain
Wilshire, David


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Steen, Anthony
Wolfson, Mark


Stephen, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Stern, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Stewart, Allan
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Streeter, Gary



Sumberg, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Sweeney, Walter
Mr. Simon Burns and Dr. Liam Fox.


Sykes, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes that Her Majesty's Government is committed to sustainable development and recently published an assessment of global warming in the United Kingdom with its sharp reminder of the increasing pressure on water resources; further notes that the increasing demand for water therefore requires a long-term approach to the management of water resources and that an important part of that task is to discourage unnecessary wastage of water both by companies and by customers; therefore welcomes the new duty on water companies to promote the efficient use of water and, although the Government has never supported a policy of compulsory metering, notes that metering can also be effective in encouraging customers to use only the water that they need and that this helps to increase the sustainability of water use; and looks to the water companies to use the flexibility available to them to develop their own tariff structures and methods best suited to the needs of customers and to local circumstances.

Family-friendly Employment

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I must inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Ms Tessa Jowell: I beg to move,
That this House sees helping parents combine responsibilities at work and home as fundamental both to maintaining stable family life in the UK and to the long-term success and strength of the British economy; deplores the Government's failure to support working parents which has placed extra strain on family life and created a situation where one in five households have no earners; believes Government has a responsibility to ensure employment is compatible with stable family life and can work in partnership with employers to this end; congratulates the employers, who, in the absence of Government support have introduced working practices which allow parents to strike the right balance between work and home; endorses the range of positive proposals Labour has put forward to support working parents, such as a national minimum wage, individual learning accounts and targets to achieve nursery places for every three and four year old whose parents want it, alongside the development of new partnerships to increase the availability of childcare; and looks forward to seeing a Labour Government implement these proposals and give British families and companies the support they seek.
It gives me great pleasure to open the debate and to speak in support of the motion.
The balancing of responsibilities between work and family life is not an issue that is often raised on the Floor of the House—perhaps because so many right hon. and hon. Members have, sadly, concluded that a life in politics and family life are hopelessly incompatible. When a politician resigns to spend more time with his family, it is not him, or indeed his family, who make the choice: it is made for him, and usually much against his will. In this place, to spend more time with one's family is a brutal euphemism for political failure.
The House is probably the last place in the world to talk about family-friendly employment; for that reason it is probably the best place to do so. This is the home of the long-hours culture. This is a place where Whips enforce presenteeism. This is a place built on an infinity of Monday goodbyes and Thursday night or Friday morning hellos.
We cannot deny that our working habits affect our ability to understand how most people cope with the daily dilemma of managing the priorities of family and work. Nor can we deny how badly we have handled the problem in our own patterns of work. We are not yet setting an example that others should follow, but although we may signally have failed in tackling the competing priorities of work and family, this issue dominates the lives of working mothers and, to a lesser extent, fathers up and down the country. Out there, the issue is more relevant than almost any other. When mothers become workers, they do not stop being mothers preoccupied by their children. Mothers who work, even full time, are also full-time mothers.
The last labour force survey showed that 71 per cent. of women in the country now go out to work. Women make up nearly half the work force and the proportion of women earning more than their partner has risen from one in 15 to one in five over the past 10 years. This factor has had a huge impact on women's lives and on those of their families. That is why this issue, which is at the margin of concern at Westminster, is at the centre of women's


concerns throughout the country. It is a revolution that the Government can observe as a detached spectator, as they have, or they can put dogma aside and stand as an ally of mothers, fathers and their families.
The number of women working full time has not increased since the 1950s, but the huge increase in women's employment has come about as a result of the increase in the number of women working part time. The scale of that is reflected by the fact that 84 per cent. of the part-time work force are women.
For most women, part-time work is their employment of choice. That is obvious, because, if the hours are right, they leave time at the beginning and the end of the day for mothers to look after their children. Part-time employees are generally more satisfied with their working hours than full-time workers because they can combine the responsibilities of caring for dependent children and, increasingly, dependent elderly relatives, with their hours of work. That underlines the importance of ensuring that part-time workers are properly protected and it is why we shall ensure a framework of minimum standards in the labour market that will support good flexibility and provide protection against unfair treatment.

Mr. Harry Greenway: The hon. Lady is gallant in giving way. She may not have finished what she intends to say about the part-time employment of women. Will she say that most of them are against it? Many women want to work part time and should not that be made clear, set out straight and true?

Ms Jowell: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening closely he would have heard me say that part-time workers are among the most satisfied with their working conditions and that for many women that is the employment of their choice. However, for many women, part-time work is synonymous with low pay and insecurity. Ruth Milkman has described the feminisation of poverty, with the women's labour market polarised between what she describes as the elite corps of professional and managerial women and the large and increasing number of low-paid part-time workers.
The women's labour market is typically concentrated in the service sector, in which there has been such rapid expansion over the past 10 years. The last labour force survey in spring 1995 showed that women formed the majority of workers in four industrial classifications: retailing and distribution; hotels and restaurants; public administration; and education and health. The incidence of women doing more than one part-time job in those sectors just to make ends meet is also increasing. Over the past 10 years there has been a 132 per cent. increase in the number of women doing more than one part-time job.
A Labour Government will introduce a national minimum wage which will put a floor on the earnings of those women and in many cases do away with their need to work excessive hours to make ends meet. The case rests on decency and fairness, but it is also about efficiency. A minimum wage is a basic right that is recognised in almost every industrialised country, including the USA and Japan, which is the world's most successful capitalist country.
The poverty pay of many at the bottom is generating spiralling family credit and benefit bills for the taxpayer and business. It was more than £2.5 billion at the last

count. It is a transfer from the taxpayer to the sweatshop owner. A minimum wage will staunch this subsidy to bad employers.

Mr. Ian Bruce: The hon. Lady has opened the debate extremely clearly. For further clarity, can she say whether the Labour party is still in favour of a minimum wage of half male median earnings, or does it intend to jump straight for two thirds of median earnings—which, of course, is the target after a few years of a Labour Government?

Ms Jowell: By now the hon. Gentleman should be clear about that aspect of Labour policy. If Conservative Members were not so intent on producing the kind of rubbish that they produced last week, the hon. Gentleman might have had time to study our proposals for proper consultation with employers and trade unions about setting a national minimum wage.
The Government's obsession with competition under any circumstances has some perverse and uncompetitive results. For example, for every £1 saved by the employer as a result of compulsory competitive tendering, the taxpayer has to find £2 in benefits and unrecovered tax. The further expansion of part-time work and flexible employment for women may do little to ease women's exclusion from the more responsible and rewarding work opportunities, and will do even less to challenge male absenteeism in the home. The alternative, that women should adopt male working hours and employment patterns, does not meet the aspirations of most women. For many, their experience tells them that they can have a job but not a career after having a baby. Of course the difference is that a career assumes progression, increased responsibility and long-term commitment.
Increasingly, the main family-friendly employment for women is to work part time. Of course there are enormous benefits to business from the new flexible labour market, but a heavy social cost has to be borne when "flexibility" becomes a euphemism for insecurity and exploitation. That is why we must be sceptical about claims that women's increased participation in the labour market is in itself progress.
Women want to work, but in jobs that enable them to combine earning a family income, the benefit of social contact and caring for their families. Does working for £2.50 an hour represent a new equal opportunity of which we can be proud? No doubt the Minister will be quick to proclaim the Equal Opportunities Commission finding that flexible working has increased opportunities for women and will use that as evidence of the success of the Government's policy of deregulation of the labour force. May we also assume that the Minister will take responsibility for the further negative consequences of flexible working that emerged from the same survey?
Britain's long hours culture is having a destructive effect on the career development of women and on family life. The survey concluded:
Even in higher status jobs the long hours culture stops women from getting promoted and in lower status jobs women have to work long hours to make ends meet. British men have the longest working hours in Europe and consequently less time to spend with their families".
While the social imperative for action to support parents in getting the balance right is well established, many businesses realise that there is a strong business case for investment in employees' peace of mind.
Women will deal with the delicate balancing act in different ways, and no one prescription will apply generally. The Government's job is, first, to recognise the changes that are taking place and, secondly, to realise that the revolution in women's lives becomes a revolution for families and is not wholly a private matter. The Government who understand the nature of the changes in women's and particularly working mother's lives can help families to deal more easily with the stresses that are inevitable at a time of such rapid change.
There is ample evidence that child care determines whether women can work. It is estimated that one in three of all lone mothers are unable to work because they cannot afford child care. But the perversity of the social security system means that the biggest gulf is not between lone mothers and married mothers but between those whose partners are working and those who are not. That is the origin of the work-rich/work-poor family and it means that in one in five families there is no earner. It is born of the outdated assumption that women are necessarily economically dependent on men. That is why a Labour Government will modernise our welfare state to promote independence and employment rather than dependence and poverty.
There is a widespread need for a partnership between employees and employers which recognises the scale of the changes in the lives of men and women and the consequences for their children and which takes into account that a working mother can give of her best at work only when she is happy and feels secure about the arrangements that she has made for her children at home.
The issue for parents is not only about the equation between work and child care. Crucially, it is also about time at home with their children—or, increasingly, their elderly relatives. Getting that right is a vital part of our rebuilding stability and security as a society.
Opposition Members realise that the world has changed, and that when mothers are at work they do not stop being mothers. We do not see that world through the prism of nostalgia for a world in which women are dependent and treated only as the property of their husbands.
Governments can provide the support that parents need to negotiate this transition only by understanding the nature of the profound changes facing families in all their compositions, by realising that the possibility of a choice between work and family is no longer relevant, and that work must accommodate the needs of families, just as parents accommodate the demands of work.
British parents are now the only parents in Europe without the benefit of parental leave. As a part of the social chapter, parents across Europe are entitled to up to three months unpaid parental leave until their children are eight years old. If fathers are to do more at home as mothers do more at work, the practical possibility of parental leave is essential. That is a specific example that draws such a clear dividing line between the Opposition and the Government.
As the balance between home and work has changed so dramatically for women, so too must the balance of father's lives. As the recent survey "The 60-minute Father" revealed, fathers want to spend more time with their children and to be more instrumental in important decisions, such as choice of school, and a lack of time was identified as the most important barrier to a closer

relationship with their children. As Penelope Leach—who I suspect advised most hon. Members on bringing up their children—observed on the importance of fathers bonding with their new babies, even three days off work when the baby is born can make all the difference to the relationship as the child grows up.
There is also real concern about the impact of insufficient parental time on the security and well being of children. This "parenting deficit" is felt by many parents to be just that, and there is no point in the Government standing by, bewailing the collapse of social order and refusing to take the type of practical action that ensures the security and stability of parents and families.
Many large firms realise, in the words of Christopher Tugendhat, that there is a business case for equal opportunity and that family-friendly practices may cost more in the short term, but that they mean savings in the long term. Those savings are found particularly in recruitment and retraining costs. Recruitment, for example, costs on average about 20 per cent. of annual salary.
Research—notably that by Prof. Susan Macrea—has demonstrated clearly the business benefits of family-friendly flexibility. Those benefits include continuous production without the need for overtime payments, accommodation of seasonal peaks or irregular work loads, and changing operational requirements—particularly six-day working—which can be accommodated more easily. In part-time working and in job sharing, productivity is always greater.
Opportunity 2000 cites a list of initiatives against which an employer's aspiration to be family-friendly will be judged. They include part-time working, time off to care for sick dependents—children and, increasingly, elderly relatives—job sharing, career breaks and term-time contracts. Opposition Members are pleased to congratulate the efforts of Opportunity 2000.
We look forward to hearing from the Minister about the action that she intends to take to ensure that Departments and next steps agencies—which are supposed to be members of Opportunity 2000—take their membership seriously and develop flexible working policies in practice. They have so far dramatically failed to do so. The Minister's record on this issue is long on platitude and short on accomplishment.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Jowell: I have very little time for this speech, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand. I shall finish this point first.
For many women, the transition to motherhood spells the end of their career aspirations. Too many women consider that as an inevitable choice, but Opposition Members do not. That is why, among the specific measures that we are proposing, we are proposing individual learning accounts that are specially adapted to the needs of women returning to work after a period at home or of women who would like to make a career change. That is part of our determination to improve people's employability by raising their skills.

Mr. Greenway: It is very unclear what the hon. Lady is saying. Is she saying that the Labour party, given the opportunity, would legislate for fathers to have leave from work when a child is born and each year after that until the child is eight? What is the cost of the proposals that she suggests? Is not the Labour party suggesting imposing heavy costs on industry?

Ms Jowell: Again, had the hon. Gentleman been listening carefully to what I have been saying, he would have realised that parental leave will be one of the benefits that British fathers will have when a Labour Government elected after the next general election and we sign up to the social chapter.
Ministers frequently bemoan the falling standards of general morality, as if we all lived in a moral universe of free choice. People do not live in such a world. They live in a world of tough choices and uncomfortable compromises, and when they fail, their failures are often manifested in their children. Quite frankly, it is sanctimonious hypocrisy to moan about the decline of family values and to do nothing to help families—particularly working mothers—to cope in a world of changing employment, threats and opportunities.
In the words of the excellent organisation, Parents at Work:
family-friendly working is not just a women's issue, it is an economic issue, a social security issue and a family issue too.
Labour Members are committed to ensuring that Government will be responsive to the real needs of working parents in the changing labour market—in the interests of employers, in the interests of those who work for them and in the interests of the millions of children who depend on them.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'notes with approval the Government's successful economic and deregulation policies which have created more job opportunities and its voluntary approach to encouraging employers to adopt family-friendly policies which make it easier for individuals to combine work and family life. and agrees that this is not an area for legislation.'.
As I am the first Minister from the Department for Education and Employment to speak in the House since the appalling incident at St. Luke's church, I should like to say, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Department, that we were appalled by the incident at St. Luke's Church of England school in Blakenhall, Wolverhampton. It is particularly upsetting when such young children are involved in incidents of this type. My every sympathy goes to those involved and to their families. The courageous and professional reaction of the school's staff is to be commended. I am sure that all hon. Members will join me in wishing those who were injured a speedy recovery.
I am pleased to have the opportunity today to set out the Government's position on family-friendly policies and to outline some facts—in contrast to the rhetoric that we just heard from the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell). However, I should like to welcome her and the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey), who I

understand will reply for the Opposition at the conclusion of this debate. In the spirit of equal opportunity, I am also grateful to the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), who will reply for the Government.
Having listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Dulwich, it seemed to me as if she was making a bid to halve her time in the House of Commons, and certainly to double the number of hon. Members, because obviously the job is too arduous for her to perform.
I shall be surprised when Opposition Members get on to family-friendly policies during the debate, which is very much a repeat of the debate that was held on International Women's Day and was called by the Government.
It's easy to say 'support the family'. It is harder to find specific policies that will achieve it.
Those are not my words but a direct quotation from the latest Labour party policy document. The document goes on to say:
we have put forward proposals for childcare, on support for lone parent families, and on flexible working".
These are not policies but proposals; in other words, the Labour party finds it impossible to produce policies on family-friendly employment and prefers to make a few suggestions.
That shameful admission contrasts with the Government's record. We have taken steps to support all families by delivering real policies that are producing real results in the labour market. One of the most fundamental changes in the UK labour market this century has been the increasing participation of women. Women now make up a larger proportion of the labour force—some 44 per cent. in 1994, compared with 37 per cent. in 1971. Some 12.3 million women are economically active. In the past 10 years, women's economic activity rate has increased from 67 per cent. to 71 per cent. The increase in the economic activity rate for women with at least one child under five was even greater—from 42 per cent. in 1985 to 52 per cent. in 1995.
In 1994, the United Kingdom had the second highest female participation rate in the European Union. There are more women in employment in the United Kingdom than in any other European Union country, except Germany. I would have thought that the Opposition would acknowledge that welcome news—it is good news for women and for families.

Mr. Denis MacShane: When the Minister said that more women are in work in this country, did she mean as a percentage of the work force or the total number? That is quite important, as she may find that Sweden and Denmark have higher percentages.

Mrs. Gillan: I will clarify what I said. We have the second highest female participation rate in the European Union. One of the reasons for that high rate is the availability of part-time work in the United Kingdom. Some 45 per cent. of women in employment work part time, an option that many women with family responsibilities prefer. Of the women who work part time, only 11 per cent. do so because they cannot find a full-time job. In addition to the increase in the numbers of women in the labour market, we have falling unemployment. The United Kingdom enjoys the lowest level of unemployment among women in the EU.
Arguably the most important factor in allowing parents successfully to combine work and family life is child care. Child care matters to men and women, but it is still women who in practice have the leading responsibility of caring for children. No mother with pre-school children can return to work without arranging some form of child care. The Government have acted and intervened where we can have the most impact. The child care disregard has helped to offset child care charges against earnings when benefit entitlement is calculated. From April 1996, the disregard was increased substantially from £40 to £60.
The out-of-school child care initiative supports the Government's aim of encouraging economic growth and greater access and flexibility in the labour market. It was introduced in 1993 and provides grant support towards the start-up costs of new out-of-school provision outside school hours and during the school holidays. This Government initiative has been highly successful. Its original aim was to create up to 50,000 places in three years throughout the country, but that was exceeded by more than 40 per cent., with more than 71,000 places created by the end of March this year.
There is no point in having a programme unless one can evaluate its success. We carried out an evaluation that showed that nearly 90 per cent. of the parents were in employment, 98 per cent. of the places were still available and 95 per cent. of the parents expressed satisfaction with the child care. More important, more than 40 per cent. of parents had enjoyed an improvement in their labour market position since they began using the scheme. That shows that the policy is working. As a result of that success, the Government decided to allocate further funding for three years. Overall, that will mean investment by the Exchequer of nearly £64 million.
We have also helped parents to gain qualifications by giving training and enterprise councils discretion to assist with child care costs. Only last week, I visited an excellent training centre for hairdressers in north London. One of the trainees I met—a young mother returning to the labour market after a break—had just finished her NVQ level 2 and had already received three job offers. She told me that these opportunities were only open to her because North London TEC had provided assistance with nursery provision for her young child while she was training.
The hon. Member for Dulwich should know by now that child care is high on my agenda. As it happens, only this morning I met representatives from an Equal Opportunities Commission-led group of child care experts to discuss proposals for a national child care strategy. I have also separately invited the CBI, Parents at Work, the Trades Union Congress, the Institute of Directors and the Family Policies Studies Institute to discuss how child care policy should be developed. Child care is not an area where the Government can act alone. Governments need to develop strategies that suit the individuals concerned and those who wish to employ them. Our policy is to build on our success to ensure that we have a strategy on child care that will continue to benefit families.
I now want to examine the development of flexible working and how its progress is helping families. We are now in our fourth successive year of rising employment and falling unemployment. With the best inflation performance for almost 50 years, the lowest mortgage rates for a generation and the prospect of further economic growth, we have the right economic climate for job

creation. Our policies are family-friendly in that they create the jobs that people want and attract inward investment.
The UK has fewer restrictions and controls on employment, so that we have a higher percentage of people in work than any other major EU country. It would be utter madness to start placing rigid and specific requirements on all employers and employees, as the hon. Member for Dulwich suggested. To remain competitive, firms must be able to adapt to changing economic circumstances and patterns of employment. We must not place unnecessary burdens in their way.
For example, the idea that all employers should be forced to give three months parental leave to every employee may at first sound very attractive, but such a move would be very damaging to job creation. We estimate that the parental leave directive—which other member states have just adopted under the social chapter—would cost British business some £200 million a year.
The Government favour voluntary arrangements that help people to reconcile work and family life. Flexible working patterns make it possible for employers to respond to peaks and troughs in their business and to recruit and retain staff while cutting overheads. The drive for a better qualified and more flexible work force has been spearheaded by this Government, and it will do more to help parents than any legislation.
As women become increasingly skilled and well qualified, it will be even more in employers' interests to introduce family-friendly policies to retain them. Flexible working patterns give employers the greatest flexibility in the way in which they work. Flexible working enables individuals to balance a career with other domestic commitments, whether child care or care for the elderly or infirm. A wide range of flexible working arrangements, including those that the hon. Lady outlined—part-time work, teleworking, job sharing, flexitime, annualised hours and term-time working—have been developed by this Government.
I thought that I heard the hon. Member for Dulwich criticise the civil service and the way in which we conduct our affairs, but the written reply to her question of 7 May shows that good provisions are in place at the Department for Education and Employment.
The introduction of a national minimum wage, which blindly obsesses both Labour and the Liberal Democrats, would strike at the heart of the job opportunities that would be available to women. It would put women out of work. I think that it was the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) who said:
It would create a jobs shake out. Any silly old fool knows that"—
except perhaps the silly old fools who remain in the Labour party.
We need employment practices, available to men as well as to women, that help people to share the care of their children and at the same time assist women to work. The Government consistently impress on employers the need to explore the benefits that flexible working can bring in all jobs and at all levels—for example, through publications such as "The Best of Both Worlds" and "Be Flexible". I do not know whether the hon. Member for Dulwich has had the chance to read them.


Last autumn, the Government's development unit on women in science, engineering and technology, together with Opportunity 2000, published the booklet "Making the Most". I hope that the hon. Member for Dulwich has had the chance to read that, because it highlights the business benefits of family-friendly employment policies, with science and technology especially in mind. It shows that taking action with flexible employment policies to prevent the loss of highly qualified staff can have real business benefits—for instance, Rank Xerox's family-friendly programme called "Changing the Culture" has brought the company a return of some £1 million over five years through savings in recruitment, retraining and productivity.
In my constituency, Amersham International runs a scheme of career breaks, where women scientists who take time off to raise families can return to work at intervals during their breaks to update and maintain their scientific knowledge. That is an excellent initiative, which is to be commended.

Ms Jean Corston: Has the Minister not said that family-friendly employment policies would be a burden on business but in the next breath said that they had saved Rank Xerox a lot of money? Which is the truth?

Mrs. Gillan: I told the House that legislation would place a burden on business and industry. We believe in voluntary arrangements that are introduced by companies. Not all companies are large or can sustain long leaves of absence. We have calculated that legislation would put a burden of at least £200 million on businesses.

Mr. Clive Soley: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs. Gillan: No, I am answering the other intervention. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) might welcome the fact that unemployment in her constituency is down by 7 per cent. over the year.

Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) was right to suggest that voluntary arrangements would cost no more or less than statutory ones. If the Minister believes that they should be made by individual companies, she must say why she thinks Amersham International cannot pursue such policies for fathers as well—unless, of course, she thinks that being a father is not important in bringing up children.

Mrs. Gillan: I think that being a father is extremely important in bringing up children, as do all Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Dulwich referred to men only about four times in her speech. We believe that businesses should arrive at voluntary arrangements because they make economic sense for them. We do not want to burden business with excess legislation.
The civil service seeks to be a good employer in this respect and has a range of family-friendly policies in place. I hope that the hon. Member for Dulwich has been able to read the equal opportunities strategy that has just been published by my Department, which recognises that

all staff should have the opportunity to strike a reasonable balance between work and outside life. A wide range of flexible working patterns is available.
For example, in the Department's sex and race equality division, there are four sets of job shares at different levels of management, as well as other part-time workers. The civil service also supports child care: by October last year, there were about 55 civil service nurseries and about 120 holiday play schemes. In addition, there were 20 nursery joint ventures with other employers and 16 schemes where places are bought in private nurseries.
Finally, in contrast to the eleventh-hour visit of the hon. Member for Dulwich to women's organisations to find out what they think, I am in regular touch with them through the Women's National Commission, the Fair Play partnership programme and the follow-up work to last year's United Nations world conference on women in Beijing. I have valued those opportunities to discover what concerns women in Britain.
In the context of Fair Play, I have been invited to visit Peugeot Talbot in Coventry, which is investigating the possibility of establishing a day care centre for elderly relatives of workers in the car industry. I very much look forward to that visit.
The Government have held regular meetings with the UK's non-governmental organisations about women's issues. We also initiated, and are keen to promote, the continuation of the regional Fair Play consortiums, which are tackling an enormous range of women's issues, including family-friendly employment. Our policy of sensible deregulation of employment rights has relieved employers of unnecessary administrative and cost burdens and left them free to develop the flexible, family-friendly policies that we all want.

Mr. Don Foster: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs. Gillan: No, I shall keep going now.
To attempt to legislate for the introduction of such policies would be neither appropriate nor practicable.
Before I finish, I should say something about the Opposition motion. We are puzzled about the difference between old Labour and new Labour. I have given some thought to that. I can see that there is some confusion among the Opposition. The minimum wage is old Labour. It is a Canute-like attitude to the economic and employment consequences of legislation. New Labour wishes to remain Canute-like but will not tell us what level of wage it envisages. Whatever the level, how it can believe that lower employment can help families is beyond my imagination.
To congratulate employers, as the motion does, seems to be new Labour. Old Labour believed that all good things came from trade union activity. However, new Labour still does not realise that employers can create jobs only if the prevailing economic and employment conditions are right. In criticising the Government's level of action, the motion fails to recognise that we have swept away unnecessary regulations and burdens in the process of creating a better economic climate.

Mr. Edward Leigh: My hon. Friend will recall that, when my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) asked the hon.


Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) what would be the level of the minimum wage, her only answer was that Labour would consult. My hon. Friend may remember the Marxist phrase
Workers of the world, unite!
Is new Labour's equivalent phrase "Workers of the world, consult!"?

Mrs. Gillan: There is nothing that I can add to my hon. Friend's brilliant intervention.
With the benefits that I have outlined, employers have been able to increase employment opportunities, both full and part-time. I join in congratulating them on taking full advantage of the opportunities that the Government have provided.
On nursery education, the motion promises nursery provision for all three and four-year-olds. Old Labour insists that that should be provided by local education authorities. However, new Labour concentrates on depriving the parents of four-year-olds of nursery vouchers starting next April and substitutes pious promises of provision for all at some distant time in the future after it may have come into office.
The Government have a proud record of putting into action policies that clearly benefit families in the workplace and the home. Labour represents new dangers with every new policy it utters: dangers to jobs with the social chapter and the minimum wage; dangers to employers with the extra financial burdens that it expects companies to bear; dangers to the economy by putting off inward investment with higher costs; dangers to families by trying to deprive them of nursery education next year. I repeat the words in the Labour party document:
It's easy to say 'support the family'. It is harder to find specific policies that will achieve it.
Labour has not found the policies. Labour is not the friend of the family. With friends like Labour, who needs enemies? I urge the House to reject the motion and to approve the Government amendment.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: The Minister boasted about the number of women now at work. She displayed throughout her speech a lamentable ignorance of the reality of the world of work for millions of women. She seems to think that having any job for any length of time under any conditions is somehow an advance for women. I beg to disagree. Shorter hours than they want in insecure, low-paid jobs are not beneficial to women.
The Minister says, as if it is a great discovery to which we are oblivious, that many women want part-time jobs. Of course they do. We fully agree with that. For much of my working life, before I came into the House and did a double job, I worked part time. I do not need any lessons. Part-time work used to mean that employees worked two days a week, 20 hours a week, mornings or afternoons—something recognisable, steady and secure. People knew where they were and could make their arrangements accordingly.
Part-time work now is a euphemism for being told that 20 hours will be 12 in future, never mind whether the workers want it; for being told that the contract will be as little as seven hours, with the proviso that, when the employer wishes, the workers will be called in to work

the whole week at very short notice or no notice, and if employees say, "I am sorry, my child care arrangements do not allow for that," they are told that there are plenty more willing to take the job.
Although I fully accept the congratulations to good employers in the motion tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends—of course there are good employers—we are amply justified in complaining bitterly about employers who take advantage of high levels of unemployment. The fact that the Government are happy to say at regular intervals that such conditions are the price that women are prepared to pay to have any work that fits in with their domestic commitments seems to me to show the Government's real motivation.
Of course we want a minimum wage. The idea that it will cost jobs is not borne out by any real evidence. All advances in social conditions have been accompanied by the dismal cries that the country cannot afford the policy and that there will be ruination. Everything from measures to stop boys working up chimneys to legislation to take children out of factories has met the response that the country cannot afford it. Every advance has been accompanied by cries that the country cannot afford it.
The country was not supposed to be able to afford the Equal Pay Act 1970—the modest measure which came into operation in 1975. People said that it would cost women's jobs, yet we are told that more women are now in work. The Minister must learn that some of us can remember rather more than from one sentence, or one paragraph, to the next.

Mr. Ian Bruce: The hon. Lady is robust on these matters. I am sure that she will be able to tell her Front-Bench team what rate she would recommend. What minimum wage does she think is right?

Mrs. Wise: The Labour Front-Bench team has established that it will set up tripartite consultations between employers, trade unions and government. It has done that, in my view possibly unnecessarily, as a concession, to meet the cries of Conservative Members. I expect the trade unions and a Labour Government to ensure that employers do not take undue advantage of that concession, and that the formula results in some sort of fair play. If that rather longer way round than I would have liked results in a solution that employers are more likely to operate, some good may come of it. One of the adverse characteristics of the wages councils system was the widespread evasion of the minimum wages that were laid down.
I hope that what comes out of the consultations is a worthwhile figure which will benefit a substantial number of people. I also hope that, having been involved in it, employers will not be sufficiently bare-faced to evade the minimum wage and fail to meet their legal responsibilities.

Mrs. Gillan: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. It is most kind. The hon. Lady will not put a figure on the minimum wage. I understand that she has a problem with her Front-Bench team and the consultation process. Will a Labour Government take child care costs into account in the minimum wage calculation? If not, why not?

Mrs. Wise: The hon. Lady is wrong to think that I have any problem with my Front-Bench team. The


Government's attempt to divert attention with what I can only describe as nit-picking and quibbling simply shows the poverty of their argument.
I remind the Minister of what she said. She said that she wanted employers to operate the policies that made economic sense for their business. So, if an employer thinks that it makes economic sense to introduce career break arrangements, that is fine. The benefit to the family is clearly incidental to the benefit to the profits of the employer. Conversely, if an employer feels that it is to his benefit to pick up a worker and put her down, to have a zero hours contract, or to employ her for eight or 10 weeks and then say, "Sorry, dear, no more at the moment," that is permissible because it makes economic sense for the business. Family-friendly policies are strictly incidental. I happen to think that it is long past time when work was organised to suit people rather than people's lives were distorted to suit the profit-making desires of employers.
Women are clustered disproportionately in low-paid, insecure jobs in which their hours are not simply part-time but seven hours, zero hours or whatever suits the employer. Casualisation removes the strength of those workers. Most are women. I am in favour of flexible working as long as the flexibility is mutually beneficial and does not involve treating the worker as a disposable, dispensable commodity.
The other side of the coin of short hours is long hours. The Government have resisted the extremely modest proposed European Union directive which would place a maximum of 48 hours on the working week. I was horrified to hear on the radio this morning employers talking happily about workers who work 100 hours a week. One employer said that his workers were young men with young families who wanted to earn as much as they could and therefore wanted to work 100 hours a week. I suggest that those young men with young families do not fulfil their family responsibilities properly; they see themselves as a walking pay packet. If a worker has to work 100 hours a week to pay his mortgage, something is drastically wrong with the housing market, the labour market and the wages.
The idea that we are doing families a favour by resisting a modest maximum of 48 hours a week is disgusting. The Government's case is that it is not a health and safety at work issue. Those men who work 100 hours a week are not only gravely damaging, and putting at risk, their health: they are risking the health, well-being and happiness of their families. Even though they may think that they are acting for the best, they are not being good fathers.
I believe in proper maternity leave. It is disgraceful that the European directive had to be watered down to suit the backwardness of this country, to the disadvantage of women throughout Europe. The Government behave disgracefully in resisting such provisions. I would go further and say that it is long past time that working and maternity leave arrangements acknowledged that babies benefit greatly from breast-feeding, and that mothers should not be prematurely forced back to work.
I believe in paternity and parental leave. It is long past time that work was organised for people. The Government talk about heavy costs on business; I draw the House's attention to the heavy—in many cases, unbearable—costs

on families. The Opposition have every right to talk about family-friendly policies, as they are exactly what we shall be introducing.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am grateful to be called so early in the debate. It has been interesting to follow the hon. Members for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) and for Preston (Mrs. Wise) and to note the contrast between them. The hon. Member for Dulwich introduced the debate in a glossy—I do not mean to be rude, perhaps I should say smooth—way and the hon. Member for Preston continued it in a more fiery and emotional way.
From both speeches I gained the strange feeling that new Labour's image of partnerships between business and employees, and between Government and business, is being brushed away. Businesses are profitable when they deal with their employees sensibly. By over-regulating a market, one restricts businesses and prevents them from introducing the policies in which everyone in the House believes.
The hon. Member for Dulwich spoke of people, particularly women, who are in the part-time labour market, their satisfaction with their working hours and the way in which this country has provided more part-time work than virtually any other country in the world. I thought that she was going to come to the conclusion to which her words naturally led: that market forces and deregulation were at work.
In this country, we do not place a tax on jobs for people who earn under a certain amount; we do not charge employers national insurance. The more we place extra on-costs and social costs on employers while trying to hide them away so that employees do not realise that those costs constitute a tax on their jobs, the more we reduce our ability to create jobs in the marketplace.
I ran an employment agency in Yorkshire for 12 years. Many of the people who came to me were women; many of them were women who wanted to be returners. I had filing cabinets full of lists of people wanting part-time work. It was always difficult to persuade people to take full-time, 40-hour-a-week jobs, but there was no shortage of people wanting part-time work.
There is no evidence that, when workers work side by side in an organisation, with one person working part-time hours and another working full-time hours, there is a significant difference in the hourly rate. I know that Opposition Members would love it if no differential were allowed. I can well remember companies in which people would rather go from full-time to part-time working even if it meant taking a lower hourly rate. There is resistance among the work force to believing that someone working full-time hours should not receive a slight premium over those working part-time hours. It is important to maintain flexibility—the flexibility that the hon. Member for Dulwich was describing when she talked of creating so many jobs in the United Kingdom.
The Labour party has started to talk about market forces. Labour Members mouth off about how they would like to see market forces, but they do not seem to accept the inevitable consequences. The hon. Member for Preston clearly said that she did not believe that people should work for low wages and she would be happy to see those jobs disappear if those doing them were not paid


the wages that she believed should be paid. That is the natural consequence of what she was saying and of what the Labour party constantly says.
If employers are told that they will have to increase labour costs, that will inevitably put pressure on profitability and a company's ability even to clear its costs. The sort of businesses that pay less than £3.50 or £4 an hour employ large numbers of people—in my constituency, such businesses include the leisure industry, hoteliers and bars. It is extremely important that we consider Government policy of supporting people with low incomes versus the Opposition's policy of the minimum wage.
The Government believe that people on low incomes are entitled to family credit, which is even being extended, in trials, to people who do not have children. The Government say that, if someone takes an entry level job in a business that does not pay high wages and that would collapse if it had to support such wages, we should consider the social costs and consider whether that employee needs help from the state to boost his income. We must be careful: the Labour party thinks that it will not be a tax-and-spend Government if it ever comes to power, but a large number of people—particularly young people and people with few skills—move through entry level jobs on low wages; if those people live at home or have low outgoings, they will not be entitled to family credit or to any other boost from the social security system.

Mrs. Wise: Is there any wage level that the hon. Gentleman considers too low?

Mr. Bruce: The hon. Lady asks that question as though, in our economy, which does not have a minimum wage, someone cannot go out and see what wage he can earn. As a Conservative, I believe that it should be up to the individual to decide what he or she will work for. I often work for nothing, as I am sure the hon. Lady does. If someone volunteers to do something that brings economic benefits to someone else and does not charge for it, that must be the minimum wage. I believe that I have the right to decide how little or how much I am willing to work for. However, I readily accept that, if a wage were unsupportable—if a person could not keep body and soul together on it—that person would obviously apply to the state for a back-up for their money. That is why we have the present system.
The hon. Member for Preston spoke at length about terrible employers, but where are they? One can always find a group of workers—they make up 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. of the working population—whose conditions are unsupportable, but we are not talking about them. We are talking about the vast number of companies in this country in which employers know that, to be profitable, they must share the good things that happen in the company with their employees. It is often noticeable that employees who know that their companies are not doing especially well in the marketplace are willing to earn lower wages to keep the company going and wages coming in, in preference to losing their jobs.
It is interesting to view the cost of child care in the context of regulation and deregulation. I am surprised that so many local authorities and Opposition Members constantly try to raise "standards of child care." They actually believe that if a woman looks after a couple of

children for a neighbour and charges for doing so, that woman, who probably has a couple of children of her own, should be subject to special regulations and standards and be assessed by an inspector.
Such regulation is all very well, but it often means that a person cannot afford to go out to work because they cannot afford the on-costs of extra regulation of child care. It is extremely important that we try to allow people to make their own arrangements in the community while providing a long-stop to ensure that children are not abused. But who is the best person to ensure that children are not being abused by a child minder? It must be the parents. We should trust people to take those decisions themselves.
We hear much from Opposition Members about letting people return to work and allowing children the benefits of nursery education. Yet when the Government make available ring-fenced money to force local authorities to set up a nursery provision for four-year-olds, they are immediately condemned by people such as the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). When Dorset had that opportunity, it found every possible excuse to continue its existing policy whereby only very few children received a full year's nursery education. The Government set up that scheme. They ensured that money went to those nurseries. So much for the family-friendly policies of Opposition Members—they did, and will do, everything possible to frustrate that policy.
What about partnership in business? It is important that we develop policies that allow businesses to give their work force good conditions, which ultimately benefits the business. However, I am convinced that we should go for co-operation rather than forcing them into it. As we all know, and as the hon. Member for Preston said, if onerous and silly conditions are imposed, employers find ways round them and employees collude completely with the employers. They say, "This is daft: I am happy to work for the conditions that I have been given, and I do not believe that I should blow the whistle on this employer, because it is a silly rule."

Mrs. Wise: Is the hon. Gentleman condoning employers who break the law?

Mr. Bruce: No. I am not suggesting for a moment that employers should break the law or that employees should collude with them in so doing, but the reality is that employees do collude with employers because they are happy to make a deal with an employer and they do not want the law to intervene. I am arguing not for breaking the law, but for not having silly laws.
It is incredible that we all bang on about parental leave—leave to allow men to go and help their wives when the child comes home, and to be with the child for a time. The European Community suggests that we should have a rigid system, whereby fathers should be able to insist on taking three months off at a time. An employer is likely to have great difficulty with that, but very few people would want to take that route, because the leave is unpaid. Almost every father in that position has four or five weeks' paid leave available: it is called annual leave, and there are also holiday periods. I am quite certain that if they decide, as we all believe that they should, to take time off, they prefer it to be paid by taking their annual leave at these times. It is logical and sensible for them to


do so. It is nonsense for the House to suggest that every man must take unpaid leave, get in there and decide to do his fatherly thing.
I have repeatedly criticised the Labour party, but in the days of Harold Wilson, a Labour Government did one especially good thing: it founded the Open university. Many open learning systems, made available by correspondence course, the Open university or now the Internet, benefit people at home with children by freeing them to get new training and helping them to decide on future careers.
I have spoken for more than long enough to set some of the aspects of this policy in perspective. I would say to any employer reading my words in Hansard that it is to their benefit to seek ways of ensuring that both men and women in their company are enabled to fulfil their family responsibilities far more. It is good for the community, for the individual's development and for their mental and physical health. Getting those conditions right thereby contributes to the health and profits of the company—and remember that "profits" is not a dirty word. Profits to companies means that they keep in business and that they continue to create the jobs that we want to be family-friendly.

Mr. Don Foster: I am slightly disappointed by the wording of the motion. This is a very important debate in which we have an opportunity to tease out the different views and policy options of the Government and the Opposition. Because Labour Members included in their motion the words
That this House … looks forward to seeing a Labour Government",
I shall be unable to recommend to my right hon. and hon. Friends that we join them in the Lobby tonight. That is a great pity.
I was also disappointed by the contributions to the debate by the Minister and the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce). The hon. Member for South Dorset said that people would want to read his words in Hansard. I hope that very many Members—certainly Opposition Members—will go out of their way to publicise his words and ensure that they receive wide coverage, because they confirmed my party's anxieties about the Government's lack-lustre and laissez-faire approach to family-friendly employment policies.
The Government have professed a great deal of concern for the family but, as we heard, especially in the comments of the hon. Member for South Dorset, their policies do not provide support for the family. The hon. Gentleman said that he believed that he should have the choice as to who he worked for, for how long he should work, and the amount of income that he should earn. If only most people had such choices, we would not be so concerned about the importance of introducing policies to support the family.
The majority of people do not have those choices. Many of them, especially women in part-time jobs, have the problem not only of low income but of considerable insecurity. The hon. Gentleman talked with glowing praise of the Government's deregulation policies as though deregulation were the ultimate panacea. He is right to say

that getting rid of unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape is sensible, but to reach the level of deregulation which I suspect that he wants would not be in the interests of anyone in work, and will not ensure that new jobs are created.

Mr. Ian Bruce: The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of Parliament for a number of years now. I have been here for nine years and no one has yet written to me saying that he or she is working too many hours and asking me to ensure that working hours are reduced to 48 per week or less. Has the hon. Gentleman ever received a letter from a constituent on that basis?

Mr. Foster: Not only have I received such letters, but I have seen detailed reports of surveys carried out among the work force to that effect. I do not know whether it appeared in the hon. Gentleman's local newspaper, but a recent survey showed the problems of stress that affect many people, their family life and, more importantly for the hon. Gentleman, the productivity and competitiveness of the organisation for whom they work. If the hon. Gentleman has not seen such surveys, he would do well to look at them, because they show the importance of introducing policies to provide protection and security for people in employment.
Another slightly odd aspect of the contributions that we heard from Conservative Members is that they did not seem to recognise the changing nature of society but simply gave lots of statistics. The nature of society has changed significantly in terms of working patterns and the role of men and women. It is therefore vital that social and employment policies are changed to reflect that. Appropriate employment policies must continue to support the family in those changing circumstances.
I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have no intention of giving a detailed analysis of many of the Government's policies that have harmed family life. If I did so, I would discuss the effects of unemployment on the family, the current housing crisis, the implementation of the Government's care in the community policy, and the work of the Child Support Agency. All those policies, or in some cases lack of policies, have damaged family life. Instead, I shall touch on just one or two issues, some of which have already been mentioned, which I consider important.
It was disappointing to hear the comments of the hon. Member for South Dorset and the Minister on nursery education. They said that those who oppose the nursery voucher scheme are keen to deny the opportunity of nursery education to four-year-olds. They could not be wider of the mark. Our objection to the scheme is that it is cumbersome and bureaucratic and will not deliver the increased expansion of high quality early-years education that is needed.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. James Paice): It will.

Mr. Foster: The Minister says that it will. He knows only too well that in the pilot areas additional sums have had to be made available to make even the pilot scheme work. Those sums will not be available when the scheme is fully implemented. The Minister looks puzzled. I suspect that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will rule us out of order if we go too far down that road, but the Minister would do well to look at some of the relaxations of regulations in respect of capital allocations, for example, which had to be offered to the four pilot areas.
The expansion of high-quality early-years education is critical if we are to have family-friendly support, particularly for people who want to work and are currently denied that opportunity. The Liberal Democrat party is committed to that expansion and has said honestly how we would pay for it. I give some credit to the Government for recognising the importance of child care provision. In the past two or three years, the Government have made positive moves to increase provision for child care. Those measures have not gone far enough, however, and I am worried that only 8 per cent. of firms say that in the next two or three years they are likely to make child care provision for their employees. More progress needs to be made in that direction.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House will have been pleased to hear the Minister say that she had invited a range of groups to talk to her about the development of child care policies. Talking, however, is easy. I hope that we shall see positive proposals to expand provision quickly.
To help the hon. Member for South Dorset—who is no longer in his place—to understand the position, I wish to discuss in more detail the position of part-time workers. Some 5 million women are currently in part-time work. It may have been a slip of the tongue by the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell), but she said that the majority of those women were satisfied with their conditions. I do not believe that that is the case, because the majority of part-time workers do not share the same benefits, holiday entitlement or even pay and conditions as full-time workers. Six out of 10 part-timers receive lower hourly pay and fringe benefits than full-timers doing the same work in the same firm. Women part-timers earn less than three quarters of the hourly pay of female full-timers and take home only 58p for every pound that men earn. The hon. Member for South Dorset said that he was not aware that any such figures existed.
Because of my concerns about those inequalities, in March this year I introduced a 10-minute Bill calling for equal pro rata rates for part-timers. For similar reasons, my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies) introduced a Bill to deal with the lack of statutory paid annual leave for part-time employees. On that occasion, I was disappointed that the official Opposition were not prepared to support him in the Division Lobby.
Conservative Members have said that giving pro rata entitlement to benefits would place undue burdens on employers, reduce competitiveness and profitability, and inhibit a firm's ability to employ more people. But as the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) said eloquently, all the evidence points to the fact that, if such measures are introduced, they will greatly benefit the employing organisation as well as employees.
In the public sector, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency has introduced a range of family-friendly measures which not only support its employees, enabling them to be more involved with their families at the most convenient times, but enable the agency to cope with the fluctuation in demand for its work. In the private sector, Glaxo research laboratories has introduced a wide range of measures in that respect. Its director of human resources said of those measures:
From a business point of view as well as from a cultural point of view, these policies have been a great achievement. They actually save us money.

I make the important point—which echoes the point made by the hon. Member for Preston—that, while we welcome the moves by organisations such as the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and Glaxo to do something in this direction, we must ensure that measures are in place for those organisations and employers who are not willing to take on such measures.
I believe that the Government could introduce a whole range of measures but, sadly, they are only concerned with deregulation and with removing what they believe to be burdens on employers. I believe that such measures could provide more support for employees and help them spend time with their families. Such measures could benefit the employing organisations and assist the competitiveness and the future employment opportunities of the country. While I cannot support the Labour party's motion, some of the measures that have been discussed have our support.

Mr. David Porter: Yet again, the Labour party has chosen a subject for debate that has turned out to be weak ground. Presumably, the spin doctors who monitor the health of Labour's image and the mediadontists who come up with the sound bites thought that family-friendly employment would be a happy, snappy, catchy phrase. However, it has to have the backing of solid policy—it does not stand up alone.
Today's editorial in The Independent— a paper much admired by some Labour Members—describes think tankery as a thing of parts: part charlatanry, part opportunism and part chutzpah. The Labour party, which claims to be the family-friendly party in employment terms, scores on all those counts.
In these politically correct times, we hear a lot about rights. In that context, the right to work is often misinterpreted. It could be said that having been born—which is a God-given right—the only right we then have is to die. However, as human beings we have a number of imperatives that drive us: the need to feed, shelter and clothe ourselves and our own is a moral imperative that comes before the layers of civilisation that time has put on top. We have to work to provide for ourselves and for our dependants. That is an economic necessity now, as it always has been. It arises out of an ancient instinct—a sort of early-man version of "Those who do not hunt, or farm or toil, do not eat."
That is the basics in today's terms, and those of us who still believe that the family is the right and natural structure of society have to see work and the family as our greatest challenge today. The realities of that challenge are stark and clear. A generation ago, 7 million people were employed in manufacturing, and today 4 million people are employed in manufacturing but they produce more than the 7 million people did, because of technology.
A phrase much bandied about is that the distance between the sunrise and the sunset of industries is getting shorter because of technology. Everywhere we look—every profession, every process, every trade, every occupation, every corner of our lives—things are changing because of technology. Technology cannot be stopped, tamed or wishfully thought away.
An increasing number of households have two earners—and a lot of households have young adult earners as well—20 per cent. of households have a single earner,


and a frightening 20 per cent., and rising, of households have no earners at all. Potentially, a generation will reach retirement without practically having worked at any time in their lives. We can see the scale of the problem—it is the challenge of the next decade.
What do we have in front of us as solutions so far? We have heard about the minimum wage and the social chapter. As has been amply demonstrated, the negativity of the social chapter—that is, the extra business burden and the undermining of competitiveness—and the negativity of the minimum wage—that is, adding to employer wage costs, loss of part-time work and wage differentials that would ignite wage inflation—outweigh any positive benefits that the economy might gain.
Surely the biggest benefit to families, the most obvious piece of policy making, is to allow people to keep as much of their own income as possible. Whatever we have done on taxes, our instinct remains to cut them. That philosophy is fundamental to achieving a balance between the state and the individual, between big brother and freedom of choice.
The dilemma about that philosophy is at the heart of the Labour party's current problem. It so desperately wants to be like us in terms of harvesting votes when people consider their own economic family well-being, but it cannot suppress for ever its basic roots: the urge to spend other people's money for them and to prescribe other people's lives for them. That is why the Labour party's policies are only manifesto-deep in the main, and they are not very convincing however they are packaged.
I say to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that a drive to cut taxes must be beneficial to all employment. Successful businesses make it easy for customers to buy from them. We have to make it easy and profitable to employ people, train people, retrain people and trade. I have always thought that the easiest way to cut taxes would be to look at our subscription to the European Union. More and more employers are seeing through the deceit of the argument that we have to be in to trade. Our strength has always been trading around the world—we did not need to subsume ourselves to do that before, and we do not need to now.
In 1995, every man, woman and child in the United Kingdom paid £415 to Brussels, and Brussels graciously handed back £271—therefore, each Briton donated £144 to the European monster. A family of four was £576 worse off. In addition, a potential Labour Government would take £560 a year off each child in the 16-to-18 range because of the abolition of the child benefit. We can see why the Labour party's claim that it is full of family-friendly employment policies is a sick joke.
We have done much to assist more women back into the jobs market. Of course, many have been obliged to work because of economic necessity. The presence of women in the market has meant that it has had to become more flexible, with more choice and varied opportunity. It has focused on qualifications and training in the national context, and it has driven up living standards and generated economic growth.
Measures such as nursery vouchers—which I believe will be a forerunner of a major take-off in choice in lifetime learning, from post-nursery onwards, in the future—are moving in the right direction. We are using

British taxpayers' money to let British taxpayers have empowerment in a free market. We need to be a bit bolder now. The nursery vouchers are the toddlers' steps in this—we need to get it running in adult steps as fast as possible for all ages.
We have taken measures to liberalise the economy, to deregulate, to privatise, to stimulate enterprise, to stop the trade unions running the country. We have taken the first steps to use public money to help people off benefits and into work—such as family credit and job match. These measures have been welcomed, but more needs to be done. To be better off out of work than in work must be a reality that is consigned to history as a matter of employment policy priority.
We need to integrate tax and benefits. We could save on administration and achieve a better balance between working families and non-working families. There should not be a penalty for a parent staying at home, any more than there should be no advantage if both parents work. There should not be a positive benefit to being a single parent over being married. We will need some tinkering with the balance in all these areas. I believe that there should be a positive encouragement to being married, and that a widowed person should not be treated the same as a person who was a single parent from the outset.
The most effective instrument of social engineering in this country is the tax and benefit system—it can be used for good or evil, it can influence behaviour and attitudes, and it can affect culture. It has to be exercised alongside employment, job and wealth creation and family policy. We have seen pilots of new policy before—nursery vouchers and a form of workfare.
Perhaps we could set up a pilot scheme of volunteers on some integrated tax, benefits and jobs package where they lose, say, 10 per cent. or less of their income towards supporting state essentials, and then they buy the rest of their needs. That could be a true incentive to generate more wealth and well-being. If that is not possible using people, it should now be possible using computer technology.
The current arrangements for funding the insurance benefits we need when we are sick or out of work are not working absolutely and cannot work in the future if working patterns continue to develop as they are now. If we continue to live longer, more active and more mobile lives, we need to look at how we fund the schemes to see whether a wider choice of insurances to suit changing families would be more effective. Perhaps people could have different insurance when they are in work. We have done a lot on portable pensions and we have looked at mortgage protection and private health cover for retirement, but we need to push this on and extend the choices.
We hear a lot about job insecurity and stress—the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) referred to stress. We hear about the way that our reforms have heightened stress in professionals—there appears to be a lot more stress about. However, it is not being honest with the nation to say that we can wave a magic legislative wand and tell people, "You will live in a totally stress-free world." On the contrary, we should be saying, "What legislative support is necessary for us to bring in health and safety, tax and family policies to buttress the sorts of choices that individuals and families make for themselves?" I believe that they would do even more if we encouraged them.
More and more people choose to work from home, as well as those who are obliged to, because the new technologies make it possible. The ease with which young people use technology should be an inspiration to those of us who are just learning. We have seen telecottages and other schemes in rural areas for some time. Those schemes harness technology, widen the skill base and help to reduce the jobs disadvantage of rural isolation.
Now the Internet has made all geographical isolation irrelevant. Jobs in my area have long suffered from relative isolation, but the Internet and the related communications revolution have wiped out the disadvantage of location. Futura, a new project to put Waveney at the mouse and keyboard of job creation and enhancement, is one of many nationally, but it is undoubtedly the best.
Of course, we will need to regulate the Internet in a global attempt to control pornography and criminal activity, but we should regulate by agreement, not by European Union directive. We must recognise the power and the potential of the Internet to create wealth for our children and their children, to support themselves and us in our old age.
Some 40 to 50 per cent. of the jobs being done today were not even dreamed of when I was born. Twenty years ago, no one thought that tourism would be the biggest job creator in the world today. Few of us can foresee the jobs that our children's children will do, but if the family is not the bedrock of what they do, they will be the poorer.
It is our duty today, en route to tomorrow, to deliver family-friendly policies that enable families to work, be creative and support each other. The Labour party's ideas are not sustainable or credible, as its motion tonight shows. The Conservative party's ideas are sustainable and credible, if pushed a little further, because they would let people decide as much as possible for themselves.

Mr. Denis MacShane: I had thought that the best contribution that I might make to the debate was to suggest that the House of Commons became a family-friendly place, move that the debate be brought to an end, have a vote and let everybody get home an hour or so earlier, but—as the number of hon. Members in the Chamber is swelling as I rise to my feet—I feel that I should continue with my speech.
I touched on this subject in an Adjournment debate some six months ago, when my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) made a speech nearly as good as the one she made earlier tonight. At that time, we were faced by a different ministerial team, because the Government sent along the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs. Clearly, competitiveness was what family policy needed.
Tonight, the Government have sent two Ministers from the Department for Education. I commend a crash course in George Orwell to the Under-Secretary, because I do not recognise as English phrases such as "improving labour market position."

Mrs. Gillan: rose—

Mr. MacShane: I shall gladly give way to the Under-Secretary when I have finished with her errors.

Many of her facts were wrong. The total labour force in the United Kingdom is shrinking, not increasing. The participation of women in the United Kingdom labour force is 69 per cent. lower than in three other European Union countries. Long-term unemployment among women in the United Kingdom is higher than in Germany and in France. Monthly flows in and out of employment for women—this is the slightly complicated problem of churning, as it is technically called—show that the inflow in 1985 was 0.53 per cent. of the source population, but the outflow of people who lost their jobs was 8.4 per cent.
In 1993, the last year for which we have the figures, the inflow of women into the labour force remained the same, but the outflow had increased by more than a third. More than 10 million people have lost their jobs in the past four years, and, although many have found another one, albeit with lower pay, that deep insecurity is so destabilising for the family.

Mrs. Gillan: Perhaps I can also give the hon. Gentleman a lesson. It is no longer only the Department for Education: it is the Department for Education and Employment.

Mr. MacShane: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for her correction. She will shortly visit my constituency to present prizes at a private school, or so I read in the Rotherham Advertiser last Friday, although I have not been officially informed of her visit. No doubt the letter is in the post. When the Under-Secretary visits Rotherham, I hope that she will take time, whether she is a Minister for education or employment, to talk to some of the poor and unemployed women in my constituency, who have had no help of any sort from the Government or her Department.
According to the OECD, some 45 per cent. of part-time women workers would like full-time work. People should be clear about that figure as they eulogise the value of part-time work, much of it on zero-hours contracts, at awkward times—some women have to get up for work at 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning—and without any rights, as the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) mentioned. Those women are obliged to take such work: they do not want it. It would be very exciting if half the Conservative Members of Parliament were prepared to work full-time. We have heard a lot of chatter from Conservative Members about job creation in recent years and, indeed, many Conservative Members have half a dozen of those jobs each.
One issue that should be addressed, which has not been addressed in a single speech by a Conservative Member, is the fundamental hostility of our political economy to the family. The responsibility for that for the past 17 years rests with the Conservative Government. In any of the main indicators of the health of family life—including the number of divorces or the number of children born to single mothers under the age of 18—the figures from Britain are worse than any other leading European and most Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. That is reality as it is lived for families in much of this country.
I deeply hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will put the family at the front of many of our policies. What should those policies be? For a start, we should bring working time under control. At business questions last week, we heard a clamour from the Europhobes—the anti-European Goldsmith faction on the Conservative Benches—for a debate on the 48-hour week directive.


I would welcome that debate, because one of the most destructive sulphuric acids that eats into family life in our society is the obligation that we place on so many citizens, men and women, to work hours far more than those that should be necessary in a modern economy. Benjamin Disraeli legislated for the 56-hour week in 1876, and Tory Ministers oppose the 48-hour week 120 years later.
I was taken with the reference to the leisure industry by the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter). I agree with him. We have some wonderful country parks in Rotherham. I recently took my children to a butterfly farm, and I recommend it to all visitors to South Yorkshire with time to spare. Such attractions are not visited enough, because too many of my constituents have too long a working week, and others who have no work do not have the discretionary income to spend on the modest charges that the leisure industry reasonably demands. Controlling and reducing working time would greatly advantage the leisure industry.
The issue of parental leave is mocked in the same manner as maternity leave was when it was first suggested. If one looks back through Hansard, one can see that the arguments deployed against maternity leave are now deployed against paternity leave.
The child-care issue is often raised. I can speak from experience on that subject, as I have lived in countries where child care is provided for all women as a social right. Child-care provision assists women who wish to participate in the work force. It strengthens families, who do not have to scabble around for unsatisfactory child care, because they know that they are entitled to it. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Labour Front Bench to put nursery provision for three to five-year-olds—I am more ambitious than Labour policy; I am honest about that—at the forefront of our policy concerns when we form a Government.
I turn now to the problem of wages. I have been in trouble in South Yorkshire for suggesting that we should have a labour market in which it is not obligatory for two wage earners in each household to go to work to earn sufficient money to provide not luxuries, but a decent living. Both a husband and wife or couples—I am not interested in their religious or civil status—are often obliged to work to earn a fair household income.
I repeat that I want to see a labour market—I do not believe that it would be turning back the clock, as the problem affects both men and women—in which one income is sufficient to meet household needs, allowing one adult in a household to devote his or her time to sharing care for the family.
The minimum wage is undoubtedly a step forward in that regard. In the past four years, the Americans have created 10 million jobs—many of them for women. Some 77 Republican Congressmen now vote to increase the minimum wage. Ron Brown, the United States Commerce Secretary who died tragically in Croatia recently, published an article in The Wall Street Journal arguing for an increase in the US minimum wage. It is profound economic nonsense to claim that a minimum wage destroys jobs, when the evidence from the United States and Asia says the opposite.
The Conservatives parade themselves as the party of the family. However, they ultimately view the family in rather mechanistic, 19th-century terms—as depicted in a

Rossetti painting. The family is the most important unit in any society. The family unit looks after the weak and the old, and it protects those who are unable to protect themselves. It does not privilege the strong, the mighty and the fleet of bank account.
In most families, the cleverest and the high achievers are teased and put in their place. The opposite has occurred in the past 18 years: the weak have been asked to relinquish wealth to the rich; the poor have been asked to become poorer so that the wealthy can become wealthier; and the less fortunate in society have been decanted on to our streets in order to set an example to those who would express solidarity and community with them. In many ways, I view the nation as a family, which encourages the strong and looks after the weak. Government policy has denied that notion in the past 18 years, and the position must now be reversed.

Mr. Edward Leigh: The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) paints a Dickensian picture of our country, which he knows bears no relation to reality. However, as he announced earlier, he is a representative of old Labour, and as such, we welcome him to the debate. I suppose that there is an element of socialist coherence in what he says, so he adds to the debate.
The same could not be said of the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) who opened the debate. She used the phrase "sanctimonious hypocrisy." I would not be so ungallant as to refer to her speech as reeking of "sanctimonious hypocrisy," because she is clearly not hypocritical. She was trying to sustain an argument, but she found it impossible to sustain it to the end of her speech.
The reason is that those who speak for new Labour, on this subject or any other, have realised that we live in a deeply conservative nation. Whatever their socialist or radical instincts may be, they have to temper them when they devise policies or draw up their manifesto. An obvious example is the minimum wage. It is not unreasonable for any Conservative Member or any Labour Member—the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) is a case in point—to inquire what the minimum wage would be. It is a fundamental question which needs to be answered.
I teased the hon. Member for Dulwich about Labour's new slogan being "Workers of the world consult," but at least the old-style socialist programme had some coherence. The minimum wage is like a piece of detritus of old Labour which has been washed up on the beach, left behind by the Blairite revolution. Labour is saddled with the minimum wage, but Labour Members are so embarrassed by it that they will not inform us what the level will be. Every study shows that the introduction of a minimum wage could put up to 900,000 people out of work.

Mrs. Wise: Would the hon. Gentleman be embarrassed to tell us what he thinks is the lowest acceptable wage? Is there too low a low wage?

Mr. Leigh: No, I would not be embarrassed to answer that question. Clearly, people want to work. The marketplace and their own skills will decide the question. I do not know what the lowest wage per hour is in my


constituency; I suspect that it is very low. It is probably well below £2 an hour. That is a very low wage, but if it is the only wage available, it is better to work for that than not to have any wage at all.
I am not trying to dodge the question. I believe that, ultimately, people must be allowed to seek work where they want, and that we should not throw up to 900,000 workers, many of them women, out of work. The minimum wage was the first problem that the hon. Member for Dulwich faced. She had grave difficulty in telling the House what her solution would be to the very grave problems we are talking about.
The hon. Member for Rotherham was right to allude to the problems of society with which we are all trying to grapple, and he was right to allude to the high rate of divorce in this country and to the enormous pressures being placed on family life. However, none of us, including the hon. Member for Dulwich, has an instant solution. At the end of the debate, she is short on solutions. I quite understand that, because I would find it difficult to offer solutions.
There is a fundamental philosophical divide between Labour Members and myself. I now want to give my own perspective on the debate which may be different from that of some of the other speakers.
A constant thread running through the debate has been that it is absolutely right—indeed, that we should take pride in it—that more and more mothers are going out to work. The elegant and informative document that has been provided for us by central office gives us all sorts of facts and figures with which I will not delay the House. I see that the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) already has a copy, obtained no doubt from some photocopying machine in this building. That document takes great pride in the number of women, most of them presumably mothers, who are going out to work.
I do not know what sort of society Labour Members ultimately want to achieve, but I suspect that it is a society in which the old-fashioned concept of the family will be swept aside. I think it works extremely well; it is a division of labour which works well.
The hon. Member for Rotherham spoke in glowing terms about the family, but for some reason, he thought that a Rossetti view was somehow wrong. I do not think that it is wrong at all. The whole point of the family is that it supports the weak. The hon. Gentleman's problem is that he equates the family with the state, whereas the state is very different from the family. The whole point about the family is that it is a sufficiently small and loving unit to enable people to support one another. That cannot be equated with the state.
I suspect that there is a strong streak of feminism running through the debate. The feminist view is that women and men are fundamentally the same. Of course they are equal, but they are very different. I believe that the old-fashioned concept of the family, usually based on the man working and the woman staying at home and bringing up the children, is right. That sort of family bolsters society.
The hon. Member for Rotherham bewails the collapse of society. Let me tell him that the reason for all the current social problems is not 18 years of Conservative government—which I suspect has made very little difference, except on the margins—but the fact that in western society, not only in this country but in France,

Germany and America, there has been a wholesale move based on increasing economic pressures. Those pressures are forcing more and more people out of work who do not actually want to work.
I believe that the hon. Member for Dulwich said that women want to work. Of course some women want to work, but not all of them do. Is it right that we should create a society in which more and more women are forced into low-paid part-time jobs just to help to pay the mortgage? They do not want to work; they want to stay at home.
What is the solution? Is it a socialist solution? Should we pay women to stay at home? That may seem attractive at first sight, but we cannot afford it. Is the solution a sort of nationalisation of family life? That simply does not add up. We have heard various other proposals, such as allowing parental leave, but no figures have been given: no one has worked out how some of these brilliant ideas involving the use of the state, or the taxation system, to keep people at home will operate.
Nothing concrete has come from the Labour party. My view, for what it is worth, is that there is no instant solution, but if any hon. Member can be said to have identified a solution today, it is my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter). He tried to explore what was wrong with society, and proposed sensible solutions.
Is it right, for instance, that our tax system should discriminate against a family in which the man works and the woman stays at home? Is it right for us to have a benefits structure that, in many ways, encourages single parenthood? There is nothing wrong with single parenthood; it may be thrust on one through no fault of one's own, because of divorce or for some other reason. But is it right for us to have a housing system, a benefits system and a welfare system that encourage dependency and single parenthood?
It is a little-known fact that this vicious, right-wing, cutting, Dickensian Conservative Government have increased social security expenditure by 75 per cent. in real terms in the 17 years for which they have been in power. [Interruption.] The cry that constantly comes from Opposition Members is that the increase is due to unemployment, or to the fact that we have created an impoverished society. Unfortunately, that simply is not true. If Opposition Members consult any statistic, they will see that we are now an infinitely wealthier society than we were 17 years ago—but we are adding to dependency and worsening the poverty trap through our own welfare policies.
I am not saying that it is possible to slash the social security budget overnight, to deliver tax cuts next November, for instance. That is not the right way to proceed. We must, however, ask ourselves why, although this Conservative Government have increased social security spending by 75 per cent. in real terms, and although this year we are spending roughly the same this year as a proportion of gross national product as did the Callaghan Government—£90 billion a year—we have record rates of divorce and family breakdown, and all the other statistics that worry us.
The Opposition suggest that the solution to all the problems is to spend more. They want to add to the social security budget, to introduce a minimum wage and the social chapter, and to have more regulation. All those


proposals would simply add to Government expenditure, but, apart from adding considerably to the tax bill, they would make no difference.
Given expenditure of £300 billion a year, are the Opposition really suggesting that increasing spending on health, education or trade and industry by, say, 1 per cent. would fundamentally alter the country's economic performance? Are they suggesting that, in some mystical, mythical way, that would create the tens of thousands of new jobs that we all want? It simply does not add up—but those who frame Labour party policy know that, if they suggested anything more radical, they would be seen off by the electorate. No solutions have been proposed by Labour Members.
I urge Ministers not to be misled by the rhetoric of Labour Members. My hon. Friend the Minister told us, with some pride, that we spend £64 million on child care facilities. Should we be doing that as a Conservative Government? Is it helping to tackle the problem?

Mr. MacShane: That is a policy.

Mr. Leigh: It is a policy, but is it the right one?
This is a very difficult problem to address. Should we say to single parents, "Put your child into a state nursery; we will pay for it, and you can go out to work"? Is that a good policy for the party of the family and of tradition? Should we encourage mothers to look after their children, and, if so, are we prepared to pay them to do so? These are the problems with which we must grapple, and instead of hurling insults, it would have been interesting if the Opposition had proposed a solution.

Mrs. Gillan: Expenditure on the out-of-school child care initiative amounts to £64 million. That is seed money to create out-of-school child care places. It enables working women to find affordable out-of-school child care for their children, and in many instances it provides new businesses for women and men who have set up initiatives in response. It is seed money, not a blanket handout from the state.

Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for setting the record straight, but in a debate of this nature, at least one speech should question the prevailing ethos, which has been that we want to encourage more women to go out to work. We should certainly give equal opportunities to women, but we should create a society in which the traditional concept of the family is nurtured.
I am conscious that I have not proposed any obvious policies, but I do not think that politics is about proposing instant policies. Politics is surely much more about values and ethics. This place is awash with policies—from think tanks, debates and manifestos—that ignore what is happening in the outside world. We should be trying to proclaim values, which are important. If we address ourselves to those, we can gradually start to create a society in which we can all believe.

Ms Jean Corston: I am delighted to take part in the debate and to speak in support of the motion.
At the heart of the motion is the assertion that children who live with two parents should feel that they have two parents. In far too many families, the father is a weekend guest celebrity, and that cannot be allowed to continue.
Today, I chaired a well-attended meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on parenting. We were privileged to be addressed by Mr. Gregor Hatt, a member of the Swedish Commission on the Role of Men and Parenting. It was set up in 1992 to assess the success or otherwise of the Swedish Government's parental leave requirements, which were introduced in 1974. The requirements are that there should be 10 days' paternity leave when a child is born. Nine out of 10 Swedish fathers take up the full 10 days. That is followed by 12 months of parental leave allocated between parents—for example, six months each or half time for 24 months. Parents can choose any combination, but the father must use one month of the parental leave and the leave must be used up before the child is eight.
It is important to stress that parental leave is seen as an individual right by the Swedish Conservative party, which has supported the proposals. In 1980, 22 per cent. of Swedish men used their parental leave entitlement. By 1992, the figure had grown to 38 per cent. and it is now 50 per cent.
In view of what the Minister said, it is important to stress that the parental leave package costs Sweden 0.1 per cent. of its gross national product, and that the proposals apply to all workers whatever the size of their company, and include the self-employed. The benefits to Swedish society and industry have been tremendous. Women workers are not isolated in pursuing family-friendly employment policies, and there have been tremendous benefits to men workers.
The chairman of Volvo, one of Sweden's most successful companies, recently said that, if he had to choose between two identically qualified men applying for a job, he would always choose the man who had taken parental leave. I suggest that this is because those who are responsible for bringing up children have to look after them throughout the day. They pick up many skills: conflict avoidance, dispute resolution, time management, critical path analysis and budgeting. People in commerce and industry spend a great deal of time and money trying to impart such skills to their managers.
No one ever looks back and says, "I wish that I had spent more time in the office." Too many men suddenly realise that their teenage children are strangers to them. It is obviously right that there should be a partnership between Government and employers and that the Government should set an example in the public sector.
In a recent speech in South Africa, President Mandela surprised his audience by saying that fathers should regularly collect their children from school; that they should share that responsibility, because it was important for them to be seen to have responsibility for their children. He was saying that absent fatherhood was not a good idea. He of all fathers had a good reason for being absent while his children were growing up, but that should not apply to other fathers.
I advise hon. Members to visit schools in their constituencies and ask the children, "How many of you have dads who earn more than your mum?" Most children will put up a hand. The next question should be, "How many of you have dads who are cleverer than your mum?"
In response to that very few children will put up their hands. As long as we continue to pursue employment policies that corral men into working long hours during which they are disengaged from their families, such men will pay a price through ill-health and through not knowing their children. The children will grow up in a world of women, which is not good for them and we shall weaken women in the employment market.
The twin track strategy of increasing the role of men as fathers and women's rights at work is the proper responsibility of Government. I look forward to the time within a year when we shall be in government and getting on with the job.

Mr. Clive Soley: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston), who recently took over from me as the chair of the all-party parenting group. I remind the Minister that, two years ago, in autumn 1994, the international year of the family, we produced a report which was sent to some Ministers, including the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. The majority of members of the group were Conservatives. That has changed slightly, in that one of its members joined the Liberal party, one joined the Labour party and another abandoned the Tory whip. Two are still in the group and one of them is a Minister.
The most important recommendation in that report was the one that in my view made the most serious criticism of the Government because it related to the Government's failure to have a coherent, overall policy on parenting, children or families. That is the problem and it was not just the Labour party that said that.
I had enormous respect, as had Conservative Members, for Baroness Lucy Faithful!, who died a short time ago. She came with me to see the then Secretary of State for Health to say that we needed co-ordination between Departments and between the Government, local authorities and the private sector to get a proper policy on families, parenting and children. She wanted such a policy as much as I did, and every organisation working in any of these spheres knows that the lack of such a policy is the problem. I cannot overstate the importance of having a policy. It is crucial to the social structure and fabric of this country.
We have, quite rightly, heard an awful lot in this debate about changing work patterns. Five or six years ago, I became aware of this issue and its implications for children and parenting when I discovered the amazing figure that, in south Wales, close to 50 per cent. of main carers of children at home are men.
What has happened in this country—although it is not unique to this country—in heavy-industry areas that have collapsed is that women go into part-time work. That is desirable and proper, but it leaves men in an increasingly uncertain position because they no longer have full-time jobs. The macho culture in which they were brought up has been taken away and they are no longer valued as parents. The role of father has been undermined.
We recently heard criticisms from a Conservative Member of the St. Mellon's estate in Cardiff because it had too many single mothers. One question that the Government and the country must take on board is: if we de-skill those men and give them no role as fathers, what

use will they be to women? They do not bring in an income and they cannot bring up children. So we wind up with those male macho figures without jobs and without hope.
The tragedy is that, when Conservative Members see some of those men in the street, they think that they are there to cause aggro and that they are yobbos. Talk to those men—scratch the surface—and one will very often find a very insecure and uncertain young man who has no hope in life. In that direction lies high crime, social breakdown and all the other problems that we find not only in this country—which I readily admit—but in other countries. But other countries are at least addressing the issue.
What are we doing about the problem in this country? Basically, we have moralised about it and made moral statements condemning single parents, people who are not married, or this group or that group. Moralising is insufficient. Of course there is room for moral statements, but we will have major difficulties if we do not have policies to underpin them.
I am sorry that the Minister who opened this debate is not in the Chamber. I should have liked to tell her that it is no good telling me that we have a policy designed to help families when the fact is that we still put children into bed-and-breakfast and emergency accommodation for anything up to three years, and when the Government still do not have a policy on it.
We tell schools that they must get tough on school misbehaviour and exclude children from school. Often, although not always, that is right. But if we do not then provide those children with at-home tuition or some alternative education—leaving them to wander the streets for much of the time—we should not be surprised if we create adults who have major problems themselves.
Let us consider the recent event at Dunblane. We greatly criticised—quite rightly—the man who committed the killings and who then killed himself. But who has forgotten that that man was brought up, as an adopted child, to believe that his mother was his sister? The two men who were recently sent to prison for gross abuse of children were abused as children. I would bet a pound to the penny that the man who took a machete to those children the other day either has a history of mental illness or has been abused in some way himself. The pattern is repeated over and over again.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) said that there are no quick fixes for such problems, and he is right. But unless we start finding a fix for them, the problems will get worse. With changes in technology and in the economy, there are more people who are hopeless and helpless. We also have technology—witness the guns in Dunblane—that enables grossly disturbed people to kill or to do immense harm to other people. It is not merely a matter of banning guns but of examining the way in which family structures have broken down.
I again tell the Minister that co-ordination between Departments is vital. For example, about 25 per cent. of children aged under 12 in this country go home to an empty house or are at home in an empty house during the school holidays. Close to 2 million children are in that position, if I remember the figures correctly. The answer is not to change employment back to what it was in the 1940s and 1950s—no one is capable of doing that.
We must recognise that there is a need for good nursery care and for something like a kids' club approach that provides places for children out of normal school hours. The Government are boasting about more part-time jobs for women—something that I support. But they must recognise that, if the man is working as well, that often means that the child goes home to an empty house or has nowhere to go during the school holidays.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) said that the House of Commons was one of the most appalling examples of bad child care practice. To the best of my knowledge, there is still only one high chair for feeding kids in the House, and there is nowhere to change a baby. I have wandered round the House trying to change a baby, and I can tell hon. Members that the Clerk's desk is about the right height but lacks the supporting facilities to do it effectively. The House of Commons does not take this matter seriously.
The problems will get worse. I am a great believer in crime prevention schemes and in doing many things that the Government are not doing, but, at the end of the day, good parenting matters. The Minister has yet to respond to the Select Committee's suggestion that there is a definite need in schools for some life skills education, including parenting. If we simply say to the young men I have described that they will somehow find a job when they leave school—despite the fact that the shipyards, the steel mills and the coal mines have gone and that they are not receiving appropriate training—we will produce another generation which is not equipped to deal with the modern technology-based economy that has developed over the years.
The Minister should look again at the Select Committee report, which was supported by a number of Conservative Members—some of whom have since left the Conservative party—and received general support from all parties. It would be a good memorial to Baroness Faithfull if the Government were to respond to her belief that there should be better integration between Departments. That is what the Government should be doing, and what I hope the next Labour Government will do as a matter of urgency.

Ms Ann Coffey: I am pleased to have the opportunity to wind up this important debate. This is an Opposition debate, and the high quality of contributions and the interest shown in the debate outside the House demonstrate that Labour's choices for debates reflect the real concerns of people outside.
In February last year, the Select Committee on Employment published its report "Mothers in Employment". The Committee had taken evidence on employment practices that took account of the caring responsibilities of employees, and recommended a stronger role for the then Department of Employment in promoting these. The Government responded by saying that they actively encouraged good practice, and had produced three booklets on the subject—the same three booklets mentioned by the Under-Secretary. We certainly cannot fault the Government for their production of pamphlets over the years.
The Government said that they had been congratulated on the introduction of a range of family-friendly options throughout the civil service, and the Department of Social

Security and the Department of the Environment are mentioned in the UK's employer initiatives produced by Parents at Work. However, the Department for Education and Employment is not mentioned. It is hard to feel convinced that the Minister is serious in her commitment to this matter if her own Department cannot be cited as an example of excellence.
It would have helped if the Government, in their response to the Select Committee report, had gone a little way towards acknowledging the problems and stress of combining home and work for the 3 million employees with caring responsibilities. However, the good news is that, in response to today's debate, Conservative central office has issued a briefing which states:
The Government is committed to employment practices which support the family and are available to men as well as women, enabling men to share in caring for their children and assisting women to work".
The Government have now issued another pamphlet, but what is again missing from the paper is any briefing on the effect on the family of inflexible and stressful working practices. So much for the party of the family.
The Government are very powerful and can legislate in a way that affects every aspect of people's lives and the choices that they can make about their lives. Their statement to the Select Committee that they do not wish to interfere unnecessarily in family life was strange, coming from a Government who, over the past 17 years, have interfered in every aspect of people's lives.
The messages that the Government send about what they consider important and the values that they hold are powerful—people listen. The Government set the climate, especially for employment practices. The Government's message has been that they are not interested in employees and that it is up to the market or to employers to deal with them.
If the Government are not interested, why should employers be? At the same time as Minister after Minister makes statements about the value of the family and expresses concern and regret about rocketing divorce figures, they wash their hands of responsibility for the consequences for the family of their legislative changes, as if they think that people's private responsibilities can be wholly separated from the economic and social structure in which they make their choices.
The pace of change in recent years has had an unparalleled impact on the family. In 1991, there were 171,000 divorces—the highest figure in Europe. We have no figures for breakdowns among stable but unmarried partners. Partners' expectations of marriage have increased, and tolerance of unhappy relationships has decreased. At the same time, the demand for good parenting, spending time with children and being involved with their school work and leisure pursuits has increased. However, the pressures on those families at work have increased. We have the longest working hours in Europe. One quarter of UK full-time employees work more than 48 hours a week. That is more than twice as many as in any other European country. It does not even lead to efficiency at work.
Everywhere else in Europe, the number of hours that people work is declining; in the UK, it is increasing. People on low wages have to work longer for a living wage because hourly rates have dropped since the abolition of the wages councils. Greater Manchester low


pay unit cites a woman who works as a legal secretary for £1.66 an hour and a man who worked 66 hours a week as the manager of a club and earned £1.50 an hour. There are other examples.
Job insecurity and short-term contracts are driving people on higher wages into longer and longer hours. Parents at Work gives the example of a full-time employee who said:
I am reluctant to put my hand up in the current environment and say 'Can I do less hours?' They might just say—yes, a whole lot less, and I'd be out of a job.
In the same survey, 72 per cent. of women reported that they were exhausted from rushing home to spend time with their children and had little time for their relationships. The current work culture does not understand that working efficiently does not mean working excessively. The consequences of downsizing, outsourcing and re-engineering the work load are longer hours for those left, and people putting in face time rather than real time to show commitment to their jobs, at the expense of their families.
The same survey showed that half of fathers spend less than five minutes a day in one-to-one contact with their children: 96 per cent. of those working long hours cited pressure of work as the reason; 55 per cent. said that the workplace culture led to longer working hours; and a further 35 per cent. gave direct pressure from line management as the reason. At least 18 per cent. were in fear of losing their jobs. Job security is not Labour scaremongering but a fact of life.
All the evidence suggests that long hours do not increase efficiency and productivity at work. They certainly create exhaustion and stress, which is brought back into the equally demanding roles of parent, carer or partner. The personal cost is high, as is the cost to the nation. Time off for stress-related illness costs the UK up to 10 per cent. of gross national product every year. That does nothing to help good parenting, for which we rely on the family.
Some women with families who work have no other option because of economic pressures. About 60 per cent. fall into that category. The long hours worked by their partners mean that they have to do two jobs, at home and at work. The growth in the number of women working part time in service industry has been of enormous benefit to employers, as the Minister accepted when she said:
Flexible working patterns are important to a competitive labour market.
However, often it is a one-way traffic. It means being in work at a time when the employers want them in work for the time that benefits the employer and the employer only. Yet those are the very employees who have the most domestic responsibilities.
The Conservative party brief says:
If managed effectively, flexible working should enable individuals to balance a career with other domestic commitments.
That is true, but it appears too often that effective management is left entirely with the family.
For the 30 per cent. of women who work because they want to maintain their skills and develop their career, the pressures are often too great. All too often, they give up as full-time and part-time workers because of the stress of coping with family and work. Many of those women are highly skilled and their skills are lost.
We all agree that one of the most profound changes in recent years has been the increase in the number of women who combine a job with a family. The family as a whole is increasingly in the workplace, but the family is still the primary source of satisfaction of emotional needs for adults and the centre of support for bringing up children and caring for elderly relatives. If, for example, the current level of support for elderly relatives collapsed, resulting in heavier reliance on state provision—or what is left of it—the cost to the country would be catastrophic.
The Government's community care policies depend on unpaid and informal care. Surely the Government need to do more to understand the problems and use their immense influence to give a lead. It is equally true that, if women pulled out of the workplace, the industry of this nation would collapse.
The Government talk about not placing unreasonable burdens on the taxpayer, but poor working practices create unnecessary stress and impact at home. For example, if an employer is not willing to be flexible in helping parents to pick up children from school and take them somewhere else, people have to fund temporary and expensive child care arrangements. The cost of child care is four times what it was 10 years ago. That expensive child care reduces the value of people's wages, whether it can be accommodated by the employer or not. If the stress of coping contributes to marital breakdown, from which divorce may, sadly, result, what is then the cost to the taxpayer?
Each year, £330 million is paid out in legal aid for matrimonial proceedings. That is not to mention the £115 million to fund the Child Support Agency. That is the bottom line. Then there is the cost to the health service of treatment for stress and all the associated illnesses such as heart disease and alcohol abuse, which amounts to a staggering £2,461.42 million a year. That is the burden to the taxpayer. If that does not impinge on the Government, whose propensity is to deal with the symptoms and not the causes, perhaps they will be persuaded by the overwhelming evidence that happier, less stressed employees are more efficient and more productive at work.
The Government should listen to the employers mentioned by the Minister. They are hard-headed, tough business people. They act not out of altruism but because it makes sense. It is not good enough for the Government to view family life as solely a private matter. The success of family life is something in which we all have a vested interest. The family is in the workplace. We in the Labour party understand that. We also understand that the family has to be underpinned with support across policies from housing to education, from child care to employment—but not just any old employment. People need employment that values and respects them. We expect the Government to give a strong message to employers to be good managers and to have consideration for employees.
The Conservative party is struggling to understand why it remains so profoundly unpopular. I shall tell it why. It is because people do not think that it cares about them or understands the realities of their life. They expect more from a Government than abandonment of them and their families to the marketplace. Their families are the most important aspect of their life. They want their families to be happy, secure and stable. They want to combine that with employment in which they are respected and rewarded. The next Government will understand that, because the next Government will be a Labour Government.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. James Paice): rose—

Mr. MacShane: Top that.

Mr. Paice: Well—if the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) had done the House the courtesy of replying to the debate, perhaps I would. She delivered a pre-prepared speech and made no reference to speeches from hon. Members on either side of the House.
It has become apparent from the debate—it was clear from the speech of the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell)—that the Opposition seem to believe that only women are interested in or able to talk about the family.

Mr. David Jamieson: At least my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) wrote her speech.

Mr. Paice: Before the hon. Gentleman makes any more pathetic little interventions, I can tell him that I wrote my speech. Perhaps he should have listened to the debate.
The hon. Member for Dulwich also said that mothers do not stop being mothers when they go to work, and she was right. What I found offensive was the suggestion behind that comment that fathers stop being fathers when they go to work. Both sides of a family are important to the upbringing of the children. There have been grounds for dispute about the Labour party's policies over the past few years, but there is no dispute between the parties about the importance of the family as a central part of our society. We differ on how to address the needs of the family.
The Opposition cannot accept the central point of the debate. There is no dispute about whether there are business advantages in modern employment practice, whether it relates to staff turnover, return on training or the number of hours worked. We part company with the Labour party on whether the Government should make the decision and remove the right to make it from businesses and employees, or whether those businesses and individuals should have the freedom to decide and do what is best for them.
Earlier in the debate, some Opposition Members suggested that the cost to business was the same whether the matter was dealt with in a voluntary or statutory way. Those suggestions demonstrated the fundamental lack of understanding of business in the Labour party. If one adopts a voluntary approach to improving standards of employment practice across the board, as the Government have, it is possible for individual businesses of all sizes and disparate abilities to decide the best way of adapting their circumstances to meet the needs of the changing world of employment and business.
For example, businesses should be able to respond to urgent demands that may require sudden bursts of work with little notice owing to the nature of the business. If businesses are hamstrung with regulations, they cannot make that response.

Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Paice: No, I shall not give way.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) spoke with knowledge of the labour market and gave clear examples of the individual's right to choose the rate for which he or she is prepared to work. He also emphasised the fact—central to the issues behind the debate—that to legislate to deal with a tiny minority is to disadvantage the vast majority of society who act in a way that we believe to be right.
The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) referred to employment rights for part-time workers. In its proposals, the Trades Union Congress, which obviously advocates those rights, accepts that they will result in a burden on business of £1.6 billion—that is hardly a marginal cost, and is bound to have a significant effect on employment.
My hon. Friends the Members for Waveney (Mr. Porter) and for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) made thoughtful, forward-looking speeches on policy. I cannot go all the way on the European issues with my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney, but he referred to the importance of lowering taxes. He made it clear that what matters to a household is its take-home pay. He did not have time to say that, under this Government, a quarter of all taxpayers pay tax at only 20 per cent.—a record of which the Government are extremely proud.
The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) suggested obtusely that 45 per cent. of women who work part time want full-time work. I do not know where he got that figure from.

Mr. MacShane: May I enlighten the Minister? The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 1995 employment report, page 189.

Mr. Paice: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to a more recent labour force survey, which apparently is accepted by the Labour party, which showed that only 11 per cent. of women in part-time work wanted full-time work.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) has been a Member of the House longer than many of us in the Chamber at present. [Interruption.] He is indeed a very distinguished Member of the House; I have no problem with that. I do not wish to sound patronising, but his speech was much more thoughtful than many others, because he accepted that there are no glib and easy answers.
The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), has read the report to which the hon. Gentleman referred and of which he reminded the House, and has taken those points on board. The hon. Gentleman mentioned what are known as latchkey kids—children who go home to an empty house. Of course that issue worries us, and that is why we have made the child care initiatives that my hon. Friend proposed, from which 71,000 families now benefit. She described the proposals for continuing and developing the scheme.

Mr. Soley: Conservative Members rightly say that an increasing number of women are going out to work. If, as they say, that is a good thing, who will look after children of school age during the school holidays? That is why kids' clubs are important.

Mr. Paice: That is precisely why the Government have introduced the out-of-school child care initiative that my


hon. Friend the Under-Secretary mentioned. It is not an answer in itself, but, as she said in response to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle, it is seedcorn money, designed to stimulate greater activity in the market by employers and other providers, to develop the provision that the hon. Member for Hammersmith rightly mentions.
Surprisingly, much has been made by the Labour party of its proposals for a minimum wage. I remind Labour Members that the vast majority of research supports the Government's view that a national minimum wage would lead to considerable job losses, especially among the young and among unskilled workers. The only issue in dispute is the extent of those losses. The OECD, the International Monetary Fund, The World Economy and the European Community White Paper acknowledge that statutory minimum wages adversely affect employment prospects.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle and others challenged the Labour party on the level of a minimum wage. The Labour party may escape by saying that it has not set the level so we cannot estimate job losses, but we know that the Labour party's trade union paymasters want a minimum wage of more than £4 an hour. At that level, we believe that 900,000 jobs would be lost, assuming that only half the differentials were restored. With full restoration, 1.7 million jobs would be lost.
How would the hon. Member for Rotherham apologise to his constituents and others in the north-west—I am sorry, north-east—and in Yorkshire and Humberside? [Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman may wish to laugh, but, in Yorkshire and Humberside alone, 176,000 jobs would be lost as a result of the implementation of a minimum wage of only £4; and if, as he said in a sedentary intervention, it were £4.26, obviously considerably more would be lost.
Much has also been made of the issue of parental leave. The Government do not mind if an employer gives his staff parental leave for a week, a year or any other period. We object to the imposition of those rules on every employer.
Unlike the Labour party, we do not believe that we know what is best for every individual. Has not the Labour party learnt that increasing protection destroys opportunity? It destroyed the rented housing sector by increasing protection, and it will do the same for jobs as it did in the 1970s.

Mr. Hoon: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Paice: No, I shall not give way.
Because we are outside the social chapter, our businesses can do what is right for them. That means that they decide on parental leave, which would otherwise cost British businesses £200 million a year. Let us also be clear about the social chapter, which means qualified majority voting on many issues. We know to our cost that even issues that, in theory, require unanimity could be forced through under majority voting, just as the Commission has spuriously used the qualified voting provision for many other employment issues.

Mr. Hoon: rose—

Mr. Paice: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would stop behaving like a jack-in-the-box.

It is therefore unacceptable for the Labour party to claim that it could block any proposals that would be detrimental to Britain. It could not. Moreover, it has supported all the measures that we have blocked or attempted to block: parental leave; works councils; and the working time directive. I wonder what is the Labour party's definition of a detriment to Britain. Perhaps somebody will tell the House after this debate.
One issue that we have not heard about this evening is child benefit. Why does the Labour party, in apparently espousing the cause of the family and professing its support for young people, now propose to abolish child benefit for over-l6-year-olds? We have heard nothing tonight about the confiscation of more than £1,000 from the family budget for every child who does a two-year course. The motion refers to "individual learning accounts", when what the Labour party really proposes is an individual learning tax.
Another issue is that of getting people back to work. Basic skills are a top priority for the Government in getting people back to work, which is why one of our most successful initiatives in recent years is the family literacy initiative. Ninety per cent. of the parents involved, many of them women, have chosen to receive accreditation for their work, and 70 per cent. have gone on to further education. That initiative is an innovative way to tackle the literacy needs of children and their parents, which is why we are about to consult on extending the scheme to 36 local education authorities.
On nursery education, however, we have seen the real Labour party. Nowhere has its opposition to choice been so clear. We want parents to choose what is best for their children, not what some bureaucrat in shire hall or Whitehall decides. That is why we shall enable all parents of four-year-olds to buy with a voucher the provision that suits their children, their wishes and their circumstances. Already in the pilot area we are seeing a huge uptake by parents and a surge in supply of a variety of different forms of provision.
This evening, we have seen the real danger that is new Labour—a party that believes that it alone knows best. It knows what is best for business, for employees, for families and for nursery education. Whatever the issue, it knows better than the individual. Throughout the new Labour document, the word "choice" appears just six times—[HON. MEMBERS: "As many as that?"] Yes, but wait for it: in four of those times it is the Labour party, not the individual, that will make the choice. Just twice does the Labour party suggest that the individual might have a choice. That is hardly surprising, given its consistent opposition to every measure that we have introduced to provide that choice.
Not for the Labour party the bright free world of empowered individuals and the chance for individuals to choose their destiny and accept responsibility for themselves. That is the Conservative way. We want a society made up of individuals, each with his or her own talents, needs and preferences. We believe that they have the right and should have the opportunity to choose.
The Labour party cannot accept that each individual is different. It believes that individuals are just components of a homogenous mass that it calls society—in that world only the Government have the right to choose. The world that it espouses is a world of dreary and drab uniformity,


with a single prescription to the problems of every individual. That is the world that Labour proposes—that is the world that the House will reject tonight.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Thomas Graham: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I explain to the House that, in common with millions of people in Scotland and the rest of Great Britain, I suffer from occupational deafness? Tonight, therefore, when the vote was called, I did not hear it. It was not pointed out by anyone that my hearing was so deficient that I could not cast my vote. That is a denial of the people who appointed me to be their Member of Parliament and to represent them here tonight.
I ask in all sincerity and in all simplicity for the House to ensure that people such as me, who have been appointed by a democratic vote at an election, are taken into consideration. I am appalled that tonight I have been denied my vote because of my not being able to hear. I ask the House to take that point on board from now on.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I recognise the sincerity with which the hon. Gentleman has raised that point of order. Nevertheless, 10 o'clock votes are hardly an innovation in the House.

Mr. Graham (seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Because of the timing of this vote, I can respect your views. However, at the end of the day, people who have a deficiency in their hearing must be adequately treated in the House. I respectfully ask that my views be passed on to the proper authorities.

The House divided: Ayes 243, Noes 289.

Division No. 182]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Byers, Stephen


Adams, Mrs Irene
Callaghan, Jim


Ainger, Nick
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Allen, Graham
Campbell-Savours, D N


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Canavan, Dennis


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Cann, Jamie


Ashton, Joe
Chisholm, Malcolm


Austin-Walker, John
Church, Judith


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clapham, Michael


Barron, Kevin
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Battle, John
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Bayley, Hugh
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Clelland, David


Bell, Stuart
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Coffey, Ann


Bennett, Andrew F
Cohen, Harry


Bermingham, Gerald
Connarty, Michael


Berry, Roger
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Betts, Clive
Corbett, Robin


Blunkett, David
Corbyn, Jeremy


Boateng, Paul
Corston, Jean


Bradley, Keith
Cousins, Jim


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cummings, John


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)





Dafis, Cynog
Keen, Alan


Dalyell, Tam
Khabra, Piara S


Darling, Alistair
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Davidson, Ian
Lewis, Terry


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Litherland, Robert


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Livingstone, Ken


Denham, John
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dewar, Donald
Llwyd, Elfyn


Dixon, Don
Loyden, Eddie


Dobson, Frank
McAllion, John


Donohoe, Brian H
McAvoy, Thomas


Dowd, Jim
McCartney, Ian


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Macdonald, Calum


Eagle, Ms Angela
McFall, John


Eastham, Ken
McKelvey, William


Etherington, Bill
Mackinlay, Andrew


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McLeish, Henry


Fatchett, Derek
McNamara, Kevin


Faulds, Andrew
MacShane, Denis


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McWilliam, John


Fisher, Mark
Madden, Max


Flynn, Paul
Mahon, Alice


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Marek, Dr John


Foulkes, George
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Fraser, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Fyfe, Maria
Martin, Michael J (Springbum)


Galbraith, Sam
Martlew, Eric


Galloway, George
Meacher, Michael


Gapes, Mike
Meale, Alan


Garrett, John
Michael, Alun


Gerrard, Neil
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Milburn, Alan


Godman, Dr Norman A
Miller, Andrew


Godsiff, Roger
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Morgan, Rhodri


Gordon, Mildred
Morley, Elliot


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mudie, George


Grocott, Bruce
Mullin, Chris


Gunnell, John
Murphy, Paul


Hain, Peter
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hall, Mike
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hanson, David
O'Hara, Edward


Hardy, Peter
Olner, Bill


Harman, Ms Harriet
O'Neill, Martin


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Henderson, Doug
Paisley, The Reverend Ian


Heppell, John
Parry, Robert


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Pearson, Ian


Hinchliffe, David
Pickthall, Colin


Hodge, Margaret
Pike, Peter L


Hoey, Kate
Pope, Greg


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)


Home Robertson, John
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hood, Jimmy
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Primarolo, Dawn


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Purchase, Ken


Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hoyle, Doug
Radice, Giles


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Randall, Stuart


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Raynsford, Nick


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Reid, Dr John


Hutton, John
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Illsley, Eric
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Ingram, Adam
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Rogers, Allan


Jamieson, David
Rooney, Terry


Janner, Greville
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)
Rowlands, Ted


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys M ôn)
Sedgemore, Brian


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Sheerman, Barry


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S 0)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Jowell, Tessa
Short, Clare






Simpson, Alan
Turner, Dennis


Skinner, Dennis
Vaz, Keith


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Walley, Joan


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Snape, Peter
Wareing, Robert N


Soley, Clive
Watson, Mike


Spearing, Nigel
Wicks, Malcolm


Spellar, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Steinberg, Gerry
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Stevenson, George
Wilson, Brian



Winnick, David


Stott, Roger
Wise, Audrey


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Worthington, Tony


Straw, Jack
Wray, Jimmy


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wright, Dr Tony


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Timms, Stephen



Tipping, Paddy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Touhig, Don
Mr. Joe Benton and Mrs. Jane Kennedy.


Trickett, Jon





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Churchill, Mr


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Clappison, James


Alexander, Richard
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Amess, David
Coe, Sebastian


Arbuthnot, James
Colvin, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Congdon, David


Ashby, David
Conway, Derek


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Couchman, James


Baldry, Tony
Cran, James


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Bates, Michael
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Batiste, Spencer
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Beggs, Roy
Day, Stephen


Bellingham, Henry
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Bendall, Vivian
Devlin, Tim


Beresford, Sir Paul
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dover, Den


Booth, Hartley
Duncan, Alan


Boswell, Tim
Duncan Smith, Iain


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Dunn, Bob


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Dykes, Hugh


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Bowis, John
Elletson, Harold


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Brandreth, Gyles
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Brazier, Julian
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bright, Sir Graham
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Evennett, David


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Faber, David


Browning, Mrs Angela
Fabricant, Michael


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Budgen, Nicholas
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Burns, Simon
Fishburn, Dudley


Burt, Alistair
Forman, Nigel


Butcher, John
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Butler, Peter
Forth, Eric


Butterfill, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Carrington, Matthew
French, Douglas


Carttiss, Michael
Fry, Sir Peter


Cash, William
Gale, Roger


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gallie, Phil


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Gardiner, Sir George





Garnier, Edward
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gill, Christopher
Mates, Michael


Gillan, Cheryl
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Merchant Piers


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mills, Iain


Gorst, Sir John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Moate, Sir Roger


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nicholls, Patrick


Hannam, Sir John
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hargreaves, Andrew
Norris, Steve


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hawkins, Nick
Page, Richard


Hawksley, Warren
Paice, James


Hayes, Jerry
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Heald, Oliver
Patten, Rt Hon John


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hendry, Charles
Pawsey, James


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hicks, Sir Robert
Pickles, Eric


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Horam, John
Powell, William (Corby)


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Rathbone, Tim


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Richards, Rod


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Riddick, Graham


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Robathan, Andrew


Hunter, Andrew
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jack, Michael
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jenkin, Bernard
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)


Jessel, Toby
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Sackville, Tom


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Key, Robert
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Shersby, Sir Michael


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sims, Sir Roger


Knox, Sir David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Smyth, The Reverend Martin


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
(Belfast S)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Speed, Sir Keith


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spencer, Sir Derek


Legg, Barry
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Leigh, Edward
Spink, Dr Robert


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Spring, Richard


Lidington, David
Sproat, Iain


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lord, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Luff, Peter
Stephen, Michael


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stem, Michael


MacKay, Andrew
Stewart, Allan


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Streeter, Gary


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sumberg, David


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sweeney, Walter


Madel, Sir David
Sykes, John


Maitland, Lady Olga
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Marland, Paul
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Marlow, Tony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thomason, Roy






Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Waterson, Nigel


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Watts, John


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Wells, Bowen


Thurnham, Peter
Whitney, Ray


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Whittingdale, John


Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Widdecombe, Ann


Tracey, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Tredinnick, David
Willetts, David


Trend, Michael
Wilshire, David


Trotter, Neville
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Twinn, Dr Ian
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wolfson, Mark


Viggers, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Waldegrave, Rt Hon Wiliam
Yeo.Tim


Walden, George
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)



Waller, Gary
Tellers for the Noes:


Ward, John
Mr. Roger Knapman and Mr. Richard Ottawa.


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes with approval the Government's successful economic and deregulation policies which have created more job opportunities and its voluntary approach to encouraging employers to adopt family-friendly policies which make it easier for individuals to combine work and family life; and agrees that this is not an area for legislation.

Occupational Pensions

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is a tag to motion No. 5 which indicates that, when the Order Paper was printed, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments had not had the opportunity to complete its scrutiny of the regulations. In fact, the Committee met this afternoon and was able to complete its scrutiny.
The Committee found that part of the regulations were defectively drafted. They are now subject to a report, an extract of which is before the House. I understand that the Department of Social Security has admitted the fault in the regulations and has said that it will take the earliest opportunity to correct it.
I make the point to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is not satisfactory for a Joint Committee to consider regulations at 4 o'clock in the afternoon and then for the House to debate them later that evening, because people have not had the opportunity to study our report.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): The House is grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the information that he gave at the beginning of his point of order. Ministers will have heard the complaint with which he concluded it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Oliver Heald): I beg to move,
That the draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Mixed Benefit Contracted-out Schemes) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 18th June, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following motions:
That the draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Pensions Compensation Board Limit on Borrowing) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 18th June, be approved.
That the draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Requirement to obtain Audited Accounts and a Statement from the Auditor) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.
That the Occupational Pension Schemes (Member-nominated Trustees and Directors) Regulations 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 1216), dated 2nd May 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th May, be revoked.

Mr. Heald: The regulations are an integral part of the package of measures set out in the Pensions Act 1995.
The United Kingdom has nearly £600 billion invested in private pension funds—more than all the other countries of the European Union put together. The Conservatives are determined to build on that. The measures in the Pensions Act 1995 will give people the security that they need to invest with confidence for their retirement.
I intend to deal very briefly with the first three draft regulations. The Pensions Compensation Board comes into being on 1 August this year. It needs a borrowing limit, and the regulations propose a limit of £15 million. The regulations relating to the contracted-out mixed benefit scheme allow a single occupational pension scheme to contract out of the state earnings-related


pension scheme on both a salary-related and a money purchase basis. That flexibility has been sought by the industry, and I believe that it will be very welcome. Under the draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Requirement to obtain Audited Accounts and a Statement from the Auditor) Regulations 1996, trustees must obtain audited accounts within seven months of the scheme year. It will be an offence not to do so, carrying a fine of £5,000.
I have dealt with the first three sets of draft regulations very briefly, but if hon. Members wish to take up any points, I shall be happy to deal with them when I wind up the debate.
I shall now deal with the Occupational Pension Schemes (Member-nominated Trustees and Directors) Regulations 1996. The Pensions Act 1995 gives scheme members the right to appoint at least a third of their scheme's trustees, and the draft regulations set out how that will be achieved. Our guiding principle has been that each scheme should have flexibility to establish arrangements for the appointment of trustees that suit that scheme.
There are 130,000 occupational pension schemes of which 100,000 have fewer than 12 members. They vary from schemes with a large number of active members and very few pensioner members to schemes with more pensioners than active members. Many schemes already have excellent arrangements in place which provide a balanced board of trustees, often involving regional balance as well as a balance of membership categories. Under these proposals, the employer will have an opportunity to propose that a scheme should opt out of the regulations, but he must propose an alternative, which must be agreed by the active members and the pensioners.
At the heart of the regulations and the Government's proposals, however, is the position of trustees. The regulations allow them to put forward the nomination and selection rules that they believe will suit their scheme, given their detailed knowledge of it; but it is the members—active and pensioner members—who will decide whether the proposals should be implemented.
We are confident that, in their proposals, the trustees will try to reflect the wishes of the membership. We want them to consider the interests of all members. If agreement cannot be reached after the extensive consultations for which the regulations provide, with the use of the statutory consultation scheme a default procedure can be implemented speedily and easily. That procedure provides for active members only to select the member-nominated trustees.
This devolved procedure is designed to ensure that the time limits for appointment of member-nominated trustees can be rigidly adhered to. It means that schemes will definitely have member-nominated trustees in place by 6 April 1998, but in most cases by 6 October 1997. We have gone one better than that because go-ahead schemes have asked us if they might be able to introduce member-nominated trustees earlier, starting their procedures in October this year. That is much to be welcomed, and the regulations would provide for it.
During consideration of the Pensions Bill, now the 1995 Act, some people argued for a mandatory pensioner trustee. Some groups who have written to hon. Members now say that pensioners and active members should vote on the prescribed rules, or that there should be a mandatory pensioner trustee under prescribed rules.
The pension law review committee, the Goode committee, considered those issues. It concluded that active members only should select member-nominated trustees and that there should be no requirement to appoint a pensioner trustee. The Government considered the issue, however, and have gone far beyond that in involving pensioners at every stage of the statutory consultation procedure. They want pensioner trustees in appropriate schemes.
Some people say that schemes will go straight to the prescribed rules—the default procedure—overlooking the interests of some categories of member, but that overlooks the fact that scheme trustees, whose duty it is to make the proposals, must make the decision and have a fiduciary duty in law to act in good faith to all members. If, in a scheme with a large pensioner group, scheme trustees were to ignore the pensioners and go straight to prescribed rules, that would ground an action in court on the issue of breach of duty, and the matter could be referred to the pension ombudsman, who is jealous of the interests of all members.

Mr. Michael Stern: In addition to the two courses that my hon. Friend has mentioned, would it not also be fair to say that, where pensioners wish to appoint a trustee, a reference to the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority would also have considerable weight?

Mr. Heald: It is true that, where the procedures were not followed satisfactorily, OPRA could consider a referral and take the matter forward.
The Government have consistently said that, if it is to be speedy and effective, the default procedure must involve active members only. Fears expressed by groups such as the Federation of Post Office and British Telecom Pensioners and the Imperial Tobacco Pensioners Action Call, both of which I have met, are being contradicted in practice. In the past two days, officials from the Department of Social Security have contacted the Post Office scheme, and it is consulting trade unions and the federation on a proposal that 50 per cent. of trustees would be member-nominated, appointed by organisations representing the interests of members, including a designated pensioner trustee.
On the British Telecom pension scheme, the federation has agreed, I understand, with the trade union to nominate half the trustees, including a designated pensioner or a deferred member to be proposed by the federation. The Imperial Tobacco scheme has two pensioner trustees and one active member-nominated trustee already. The scheme intends to keep them and to ensure that any future employer will not be able to change that. In contemplation of the regulations, Guinness, which has not previously had pensioner trustees, has appointed one.
One prominent official of the Association of Pension Lawyers, who has spoken to officials at the Department and who has conducted numerous seminars and conferences on this matter, speaking to hundreds of scheme professionals and member representatives, has confirmed that not one scheme that he has come across intends to use the prescribed rules directly. As someone who also meets numerous groups in this category, that is also my experience.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will the Minister assure the House that the new pensioner trustee representatives,


the Pensions Act 1995, and what we are agreeing now will prevent a fraud such as that which took place in the Belling scheme—a large amount of money was misused, and members and trustees were not aware of what a couple of the trustees had done?

Mr. Heald: The proposals are part of a package of measures that will make it extremely difficult for anyone to commit fraud of the type committed by Robert Maxwell. I am not able to comment on the Belling case, but the proposals impose tough penalties if audited accounts are not produced on time, and place a duty on the scheme administrators to provide those accounts to members on request. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the disclosure provisions, the occupational pensions regulatory authority and minimum funding provide a powerful package that will go a long way towards obviating future problems.
Opposition Members often say that there is too much regulation, and the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) may feel that it would be rather odd to propose measures that would be much more prescriptive than those of the Government. It is possible to combine flexibility and security, and the provisions do that. We have said that we will carefully monitor the provisions, which are being presented as regulations. In view of the multiplicity of schemes, the prize of flexibility is valuable, but if it is abused, the Government will certainly take action to correct such abuse as it occurs.

Sir Donald Thompson: My hon. Friend speaks about flexibility, but I am concerned—as are Opposition Members—about the problems of Maxwell and Belling, which should never arise again and perhaps should not have arisen in the first place. At the other end of the scale are people such as my friend and constituent Harry Wright, who, because of a technicality, was given a pension of £14 a month when he could reasonably have expected one of £140 a week. Will the new scheme allow the trustees to look into individual cases more carefully—and flexibly, to use my hon. Friend's term—than under the present arrangements?

Mr. Heald: The measures are part of a regulatory package and will enable the trustees to act. The regulations as a whole, of which this is a small part, will allow the disclosure that is necessary for the trustees to do that. That is also provided for scheme members.

Mr. Bennett: Is it appropriate at least to apologise to the House for the mistake in the measure, especially as it was the Minister who signed it?

Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. A consequential amendment was not made, and I apologise to the House for that. We should have done better.

Mr. Chris Smith: I wish to speak on motion No. 5:
That the Occupational Pension Schemes (Member-nominated Trustees and Directors) Regulations 1996 (S. 1., 1996, No. 1216), dated 2nd May 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th May, be revoked.

The order is inadequate and is based on inadequate legislation. The Government should take it away and think again. Before turning to the detail of that order, however, I should like to comment on the other three.
The order for a requirement to obtain audited accounts and the one for borrowing authority for the Pensions Compensation Board are unexceptional and useful. The fourth order is for mixed benefit schemes, and we share the concern of the National Association of Pension Funds about the complexity being built into the system by, in effect, the treatment of contracted-out mixed benefit schemes as two separate schemes, thereby requiring the equivalent of a transfer procedure between the two parts. We ask whether that cumbersome procedure is strictly necessary.
We take most severe issue with the procedure for member-nominated trustees. The background to that is, first, the Goode committee and, secondly, the Pensions Act 1995. The aim, which I am sure that we all share, is for a fair balance of control between employers and members, including pensioner members, in the running of company schemes. Hon. Members should always remember what can happen if things go wrong, and Maxwell and Belling provide telling evidence of that.
In the aftermath of Maxwell, the Goode committee recommended, first, that, for final salary schemes, active members should be entitled to a point that is at least one third of that of trustees. Secondly, it recommended that for money purchase schemes, active members should nominate at least two thirds of trustees—a distinction that the Government now seem to have dropped entirely. Thirdly, it recommended that there should be encouragement to take pensioner trustees on board. Fourthly, it recommended that there should be a proactive regulator and a minimum solvency standard. The Pensions Act 1995 and the regulations that we are now debating water down all those Goode proposals.
During the passage of the Pensions Act 1995, Labour Members consistently proposed two simple and important provisions. The first was that at least 50 per cent. of scheme trustees should be member-nominated trustees. Secondly, we proposed that at least one of the member-nominated trustees on large schemes should be chosen by the scheme's pensioner members. We still stand firmly by those two objectives.

Mr. Phil Gallie: When the hon. Gentleman referred to the Goode report, he mentioned the fact that there was encouragement to take on board pensioner trustees. It seems that my hon. Friends have adopted that encouragement. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that that should be mandatory? If so, I have some sympathy with that position. But he used the words "large schemes".

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right to point to a difference between Goode and ourselves. We want to go further than Goode. We believe that in large schemes—obviously it is not appropriate in very small schemes—there should be a pensioner-nominated trustee. Had that proposal been accepted, we would have had a simple, fair and effective procedure in place. Instead, we do not.

Mr. Stern: May I refer the hon. Gentleman back to the discussions that we had during the passage of the Pensions Bill? There are large schemes and there are large schemes.


Many of the schemes that have been in correspondence with us are readily able to find procedures for nominating a pensioner trustee. But if one considers, for example, a type of scheme that involves members in 50 countries, the fact is that it is physically incapable, however large, of finding procedures quickly to nominate a pensioner trustee. I wonder why the Opposition have not yet taken that point on board.

Mr. Smith: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman, because the regulations that we are considering today—from a Conservative Government—require that pensioner members should be consulted at many stages of the procedure. If it is possible to consult them at those stages of the procedure, surely it is possible to consult them at the final stage, when members are nominated.

Sir Andrew Bowden: On the subject of pensioner trustees, is there any reason why pensioners should not be able to nominate someone who is not a pensioner to act on their behalf?

Mr. Smith: That would be a sensible solution, but it would not be possible under the fallback scheme that the Government are proposing in the regulations. That is one of our particular objections to the regulations.

Mr. Heald: Would the hon. Gentleman care to define a large scheme?

Mr. Smith: I would have thought that we would be talking about a scheme with, say, 1,000 members, as the Government would conclude if they were capable of taking a sensible approach.
Our first objection to the regulations is the absurd complexity of the provisions. The Department of Social Security letter accompanying the draft regulations for consultation said:
the rules must be quick to implement, easy to operate and avoid unnecessary cost.
However, the House must examine what can happen under the regulations. First, the employer decides whether to put forward proposals for alternative arrangements to replace the member-nominated trustee requirements. If he decides to put forward alternative arrangements, he must put those proposals out for consultation. The active and the pensioner members then have the right to object to the proposals by a specified procedure, and if either 10 per cent. or 10,000 members—whichever is the lower—object, the employer must go back and think again.
If the members do not object, the employer can proceed to implement the new regulations. If, however, they object, the employer can either go to a ballot or withdraw the proposals and come forward with further proposals. If he comes forward with further proposals, the same procedure starts all over again. A tenth or 10,000 of the active and pensioner members can decide to object, and if they are succesful, we go back into the same loop.
Let us suppose that the employer—having tried twice and been rejected twice by more than 10,000 or a tenth of the members—then decides to proceed to a ballot. The active and the pensioner members have the right to participate in that ballot. If a majority of those voting vote against the employer's proposals, the employer can go back and start all over again with a further set of

proposals. Or the employer can say, "I have had enough. I am not going to make any alternative proposals. I will put it to the trustees."
The trustees—a majority of whom are, of course, appointed by the employer—can again activate the procedure and can make proposals for alternative arrangements. Again, 10,000 or one tenth of the membership—whichever is the lower—can object. If they do, the procedure has to go back for further decision and proposal by the trustees or to a ballot. If the ballot then rejects the trustees' alternative proposals, they can go back and propose a further scheme. Finally, if all this fails, they go to the fallback scheme that the Government have put in place.
That is not an easy to operate, quick to implement procedure. It could involve no fewer than five ballots without conducting the exercise more than once, and possibly seven or more. It is cumbersome, difficult for members to understand and easy for employers to manipulate.
That brings me to our second objection. It is perfectly possible under the procedures for a scheme to end up with fewer than one third member-nominated trustees. In the case of a determined employer who comes back with scheme after scheme after scheme—requiring on each occasion that a tenth of the members object—it is perfectly possible for a scheme to end up with no member-nominated trustee at all. That is not in the spirit of Goode or even of the Pensions Act.

Mr. Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the period during which the employer can propose alternative schemes is only six months at the maximum? There is no question of it being longer.

Mr. Smith: It is perfectly possible in that time scale, and within the rules laid down in these procedures, for a determined employer to reduce to a bare minimum or to non-existence the participation of member-nominated trustees. The proposed rules do not guarantee any proportion of trustees as member-nominated. I believe that they should.
The Government should at least consider the compromise proposed by the Trades Union Congress, which has suggested that, where the opt-out proposal is for less than one third member-nominated trustees—[Interruption.] I detect some muttering among Conservative Members because we have ventured to suggest that the Trades Union Congress, which represents democratic trade unions, has a valid point. I am astonished that the Government have sunk to such depths that they can deride the participation of trade unions in framing pension regulations and legislation of profound interest to their members and to millions of employees. The Government should be ashamed of their Back Benchers' reaction.
The TUC suggests that, where an opt-out proposal is for less than one third member-nominated trustees—which would weaken the intentions of the Goode committee and the Pensions Act, the existing practice of many schemes, and the participation of member-nominated trustees—there should be a low threshold for objection. It has suggested 5 per cent., which is sensible. In such circumstances, members will often want to ensure that they can still have a real say. But it


has suggested that, where the opt-out is for more than one third—for example, where the existing provision is 50:50—the proposed 10 per cent. objection threshold should stand. That is a sensible proposal. Even within the constraints of the Pensions Act, that would surely be a better way to proceed.
Our third objection is that the fallback scheme fails to give any role in the final selection of member-nominated trustees to pensioner members. It should and the Government promised that it would. The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) was then the Minister responsible for pensions. In the light of his rise to greatness, I predict great things for my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). The right hon. Gentleman said:
both pensioners and active members will be given the opportunity to influence nomination and selection arrangements"—[Official Report, 4 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 238.]
The Government have not made provision for that in the selection procedures in the fallback scheme in the regulations.
Our concern is echoed in early-day motion 692, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) and signed by more than 40 Conservative Members. It states:
this House … believes that pensioner involvement in every stage of the nominating and selection process is essential if occupational pensioners arc to be reassured of the security of their pension schemes".
The principle of involvement at every stage is not enshrined in the procedures that have been tabled tonight. It should have been, and Conservative Members who signed the early-day motion should think long and hard before supporting the Government in the Division Lobby tonight.

Mr. John Butterfill: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the main defects of the Act, if there is a defect, is that it places such burdens on employers that they are likely to shrink away from occupational schemes altogether and that that will result in a proliferation of money purchase schemes or personal pensions? That is happening in other parts of the world, including the United States and elsewhere. Does he agree that his proposals would aggravate that procedure? There is always conflict between the employer, the active members and the pensioner members. The regulations seek to resolve that conflict, however inadequately. Does he agree that the one group of people who are inadequately represented are the deferred pensioners?

Mr. Smith: The process that the hon. Gentleman fears of employers withdrawing from occupational schemes and diminishing numbers of people taking part in such schemes is already happening here. We have fewer members of occupational schemes now than five years ago. That is a trend which deeply worries me.
The proposals that we have made of a 50:50 split between employers and members and for a guaranteed seat for pensioners within the member-nominated segment of the board would be far simpler and easier for employers to operate than the ones that are specified in the regulations. The National Association of Pension Funds

has said that it is perfectly happy to accept that proposal. So I urge Conservative Members to think carefully before endorsing in the Lobby tonight this cumbersome procedure, which does not protect the interests of pensioner members.

Mr. Butterfill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Smith: No. I am drawing to a close.
I also urge Conservative Members not to be bought off by the suggestion that a reference to OPRA might suffice to protect pensioner interests. Nor can pensioner members be particularly gratified by the Government's suggestion that they could go to court to protect their interests under fiduciary duty rules. How much better it would be to get the legislation right in the first place.
It is surely sensible for larger schemes and those in which at least 40 per cent. of the members are pensioner members to have one place on the board nominated and voted for by pensioner members. There is a legitimate pensioner voice to be heard in the debates of the trustees of the fund. For example, there may be issues relating to the deployment of surplus funds. Pensioners have a voice that ought to be considered.
The Confederation of British Industry has raised a mythical spectre of thousands of pensioner votes swamping the employee votes. That would easily be avoided by adopting the proposal for one member voted on by pensioners, and the others in the member cohort being voted for by the active employee members. The principle of having a pensioner member on the board is widely accepted and already in place in many schemes. Schemes operated by Harland and Wolff, Kimberly-Clark, Thorn EMI and the Commonwealth Development Corporation have all recently brought in pensioner trustees. Imperial Tobacco has recently increased the number of elected pensioner trustees from one to two. Those are wholly positive developments. The statutory framework should not only encourage and enable such provision but should ensure pensioner involvement in trustee boards.
The Public Accounts Committee has highlighted the problem of mistrust between pensioners and pension schemes. The Maxwell scandal has reminded us forcefully of the need for proper, open and accountable procedures. The involvement of pensioner members is important and the Government do not guarantee it in the proposals that they make to us tonight. I urge the Government to take these flawed regulations away and come back with something better. A Labour Government will do precisely that.

Sir Andrew Bowden: I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said, and I greatly appreciate the time and trouble that he has taken to discuss my concerns about this statutory instrument. It is a complicated matter, but if the Government had accepted the amendments—supported by myself and others during the passage of the Pensions Bill in 1995—to require major pension fund trust boards to include a pensioner member, they would not be facing the controversies arising from the statutory instrument.
In Committee on the Pensions Bill, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People said:


We are putting employees—the active members—on the same basis as the pensioner members."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 16 May 1995; c. 159.]
The Under-Secretary of State has produced a briefing paper on the statutory instrument. The paper states:
Pensioner members will therefore in the normal course of events have a considerable part to play in the selection and appointment of member-nominated trustees.
Pensioner members could and will have a considerable part to play only if the employer so wishes.
A letter that I received from the National Association of Pension Funds referred to schedule 1 of the regulations, and stated:
The employer decides whether to put forward proposals for alternative arrangements to replace the member-nominated trustee requirements. (He may wish to do so to exclude the participation of member or pensioner representatives on the trustee board or to ensure that such representatives are either persons whom he has selected or persons whom he does not wish to veto.
That emphasises the unsatisfactory nature of the contents of the statutory instrument.

Mr. Heald: Many trustee boards include independent members who protect the interests of a wide range of members, including pensioners. Is my hon. Friend saying that, if an employer wants to make such a proposal, there is something wrong in that?

Sir Andrew Bowden: I did not hear the last part of my hon. Friend's comments.

Mr. Heald: I am talking about the position of boards that already have independent trustees—where the employer may well suggest to the members that that provides them with adequate security.

Sir Andrew Bowden: I am not saying that in the majority of cases it will not work very well. But one of the jobs of the House is to try to foresee difficulties and problems that will arise and prevent them from arising. A large number of pensioners do not have confidence that they will be properly represented. It needs only a tiny proportion of employers deliberately to find a way round this to prevent pensioner trustees from being properly represented and from having their views heard. That occurrence will be rare, but why should the House allow any measure to go through that is not as sound and solid as possible in order to prevent it?
In its letter to me, the NAPF said:
NAPF would not, however, oppose the involvement of pensioners in the prescribed rules process, especially"—
this is a key point—
where the number of pensioners outweighed the number of active members.
Neither the House nor the Government can discount the views of the NAPF in the way that they appear to be doing.
Instead of making it more difficult for them, we should be encouraging pensioner trustees. I emphasise the point that I made to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith); a pensioner trustee or a trustee representing the pensioners does not have to be a pensioner, but may be a person with special knowledge and experience, who would be able to ensure that the pensioner case was heard.
A pensioner trustee elected by pensioners, regardless of whether he or she is pensioner or non-pensioner, provides a reliable safeguard. It is easier for him or her to blow the whistle if he believes that things are going wrong—much easier for such a person than for an active pensioner, who is involved in the company, involved in its operation, who is thinking of his career, his prospects, his promotions, which will not apply to the pensioner individual members.

Mr. Stern: What worries me about my hon. Friend's comments is that he appears to assume that the interests of all pensioners are identical. I wonder how he would apply his comments to the circumstances that occurred in the constituencies of myself and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope), where there were three different groups of pensioners in the Rolls Royce plc pension scheme, all of which had totally opposed interests.

Sir Andrew Bowden: We might need the judgment of Solomon himself to sort that out. I am not sure whether it is possible to find the miracle person who would do that. I am sure that a person of experience and knowledge, be they retired or not retired, would be able to achieve a balance if his main—not exclusive—focus were to protect the interests of pensioners in the scheme.
Active members of boards of trustees are much more likely to go along with employers' proposals. It would be unnatural if they did not do so.

Mr. Butterfill: I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern). As I said to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), is not the difficulty the conflict between those who represent pensioners, those who represent employers and those who represent the active members? Of course the deferred pensioners are nowhere represented. Would not the 1995 Act be better if we had a much greater proportion of wholly independent trustees, who would consider the matter in the round?

Sir Andrew Bowden: That is a splendid suggestion, but unfortunately it is not in the 1995 Act. We cannot discuss or consider it tonight, because it is out of order in
relation to this statutory instrument. We must deal with what is before us.
This statutory instrument, as it stands, is not acceptable to Age Concern (England), the Confederation of Occupational Pensioner Associations, the National Federation of Post Office and BT Pensioners and many other pensioner organisations, and it is not acceptable to me. In the circumstances, I hope that the Minister will withdraw it now and reconsider.

Ms Liz Lynne: I will be brief, because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak and we have little time.
I shall speak especially to the regulations concerning pensioner trustees. The Government promised, during the passage of the Pensions Bill, that pensioner members of pension schemes should have the same rights as everyone who was still paying in; yet both the draft regulations and the final regulations exclude pensioner members from nominating or voting for the selection of member-nominated trustees.
There is widespread opposition to this set of regulations. As has been said, Age Concern believes that it discriminates against pensioners. The Trades Union Congress and the National Federation of Post Office and BT Pensioners are opposed and there is widespread opposition in the House. Already, we have talked about early-day motion 692, tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), a Conservative Member of Parliament, with 170 signatures from all parts of the House. They believe, as I do, that it is grossly unfair.
The Government spelled out what they intended to do in the passing of the Pensions Act 1995. The Official Report contains quote after quote about pensioner trustees. I shall read just one of those tonight, as time is short. Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, Minister of State for Social Security, said:
As the Bill stands, it gives equality of opportunity both to active and pensioner members and it is for scheme members to decide together the best way to nominate trustees, bearing in mind the needs of their particular scheme."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 March 1995; Vol. 562, c. 615.]
Throughout the passage of the Bill, pensioners and organisations were led to believe that they would be able to nominate people from their own ranks.

Mr. Heald: On 13 February 1995, my right honourable and noble Friend in the other place said quite specifically, in column 478 of Hansard, that the prescribed rules—the default procedure—would be restricted to active members.

Ms Lynne: The Minister must know that, throughout the Bill's proceedings, numerous quotes support my argument. He uses just one quote; if I had time, I could go through the list of quotes before me. If other hon. Members have time, they might enlighten the Minister, because he cannot simply come to the Dispatch Box and use one quote. He knows that many Ministers said that pensioner trustees would be allowed to nominate. He cannot dispute that fact. No wonder people are upset.
Pensioners have a high level of independent scrutiny in the task of trusteeship. For instance, they cannot be threatened with the sack, nor can they be tempted to exchange their pension benefits for higher wages or an improved redundancy package. Occupational pensioners need to be reassured about the security of their pension schemes, and the Pensions Act was designed to prevent another Maxwell-type fraud. Pensioner organisations are rightly suspicious about the loopholes in these regulations. I hope that all the hon. Members who signed the early-day motion will join us in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. Michael Stern: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief contribution to this debate. It is a great shame that the debate is taking place at all, because it is a direct repetition of a debate that took place in Committee on the Pensions Bill, when every issue that has been discussed tonight was debated at length and the House eventually accepted that it had to agree to the compromise in the Bill. Many of us would have liked the Government to lean a little further towards pensioner trustees in the Act and its regulations. It is a

pity that, in arriving at that compromise, the Government listened too well to the ultimate arm of the corporate state, the National Association of Pension Funds. Nevertheless, the Act was a compromise and, as a result of considerable debate in Committee, the legislation was accepted by the House.
Following the Bill's enactment, a number of pension funds expressed the desire to see to what further extent the movement towards pension fund trustees could take place. With that in mind, and in conjunction with officers of the National Federation of Post Office and BT Pensioners, I drafted the early-day motion that stood in my name and those of some 150 colleagues on both sides of the House.
The purpose of the early-day motion was not to overturn the Pensions Act 1995, as Labour Members are claiming tonight—[Interruption.] I was there, and I know what went on—Labour Members were not there, and they do not know what went on. The purpose of the early-day motion was to encourage the Government to move a little further towards pension trustees. As a result of the early-day motion and the discussions that I had with my hon. Friend the Minister, my hon. Friend made statements about the role of the pension regulator and the pensions ombudsman in listening to the desires of individual pensioners in relation to pensioner trustees being appointed where possible.
I approached the Confederation of Occupational Pensioners Associations and suggested that it listen to the views of Ministers in this regard. I drafted a statement of the current state of the debate for the confederation—which is way beyond what Labour Members did. However, the confederation did not bother to put forward that view—that is a shame, but it was its decision.
The debate has moved on since the Committee stage and it is a shame that Labour Members have not noticed that the debate has moved on—it is busy trying to resow infertile ground. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister has decided to put forward the regulations tonight.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Pensions are important to many of our constituents. Before I became a Member of Parliament, I was a director of the Philips pension fund for a short time. Four pension schemes in my constituency have got into difficulties and the members of the scheme—some of them pensioners and some of them deferred pensioners—will not get what they expected. I shall refer to Belling in a moment, but the others were not the result of fraud—they were the result of changes in the industry and the finance not being sufficient to meet all the requirements of the pension funds.
Earlier, the Minister could not tell me whether what we are being asked to approve tonight will stop another Maxwell or Belling fiasco from taking place—indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) assured me that his answer would be no. To some degree, the Pensions Act 1995 followed the Maxwell incident—although the Belling incident involved a smaller amount of money and fewer people, it was important to them.
I have looked at the pension funds that have got into difficulties in my constituency and found that there is a difference between those who are participating as working members and still contributing to the fund and waiting for


a pension, and those who have an actual pension at the present time. If the pension fund goes into liquidation and is wound up, there is a clear clash of interest as moneys are gathered in to meet the requirements. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said that we need to ensure that pensioners have representation in addition to the other contributing workers in the fund—especially in the larger schemes that have more than 1,000 members.
We have to ensure that all the trustees know what is going on in the pension fund for which they are responsible. It was clear in the Maxwell and Belling cases that millions of pounds were defrauded from the schemes and few people in those schemes knew what was happening. That is not acceptable and the Pensions Act 1995 and the regulations before us tonight, about the way in which trustees will be appointed, have not solved that problem. They will not ensure that another Maxwell or Belling will happen and so I think that we should vote as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury suggested.

Mr. Roger Gale: I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary would consider the case of my constituent Ken Hilditch and others like him. Perhaps in my hon. Friend's reply he might address the question whether the regulations before us tonight, which I do not seek to oppose, will help my constituent and others like him.
Ken Hilditch is a Hoverspeed pensioner. Hoverspeed was founded by British Rail, Seaspeed and Brostrums, trading as HoverLloyd, in 1981. In 1982, Hoverspeed set up a pension fund, backdated to 1981, that guaranteed cost-of-living increases to their pensioners. Indeed, the contracts of employment for Hoverspeed included a pension scheme that was inflation-linked, provided, as it said in the small print, that the increases were not excessive. At that time, "not excessive" was construed to mean not more than 10 per cent.
In 1987, the Hoverspeed company was acquired by Sea Containers and in 1989 Sea Containers decided to give itself a two-and-a-half-year contributions holiday from the pension fund, which saved the company some £750,000. In 1991, when the pension contributions should have recommenced, the company decided to give itself a further nine-month holiday, which saved a further £250,000. In other words, the company, at the expense of the pensioners, saved itself £1 million, or enough, I am told, to continue inflation linking. In 1993, the company offered the pensioners no increase whatever, but in 1994, as a result of representations made by myself and others, the pension increase was reinstated and backdated to cover 1993. The £1 million was never repaid.
When Sea Containers took over Hoverspeed, it undertook the transfer of undertakings and took on the assets of the pension fund and, of course, the liabilities of the pension fund. The company has now said that it will not, at any time, implement a cost-of-living increase above 5 per cent. Under this Government, I hope and believe that inflation will never rise above 5 per cent., but were there ever to be a change of Government, inflation would also change and pensioners under the Hoverspeed scheme could find themselves short-changed.
At no time during the proceedings were the trustees of the fund properly consulted. I share the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown

(Sir A. Bowden) that those involved in taking the decision to have a contribution holiday clearly had an active vested interest in the company, not least in their own job and promotion prospects, and were not likely to act necessarily in promotion of the best interests of the existing pensioners, of whom Ken Hilditch is only one of many.
Can my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary give me an assurance that the regulations will strengthen pensioner representation to the extent that such circumstances will not occur? Pensioners with a clear interest in their pensions' futures should be properly represented.

Mr. Frank Field: I was not going to speak in this debate, but I wish to support the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden) on the basis of the contribution by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern). When I opened my post to find a letter from the hon. Gentleman asking me to sign his early-day motion—or, rather, a letter in support of the early-day motion—I was foolish enough, like 150 other hon. Members, to sign. I thought that we should sign it because the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West meant business. I now learn that, when push came to shove, the Whip moved up the Gangway quickly and the hon. Gentleman gave in easily.

Mr. Stern: The hon. Gentleman accuses me of giving in to a Whip. He first suggested, and then withdrew the suggestion, that I had written to him, which I had not, and he then suggested that I put forward an idea for an early-day motion that I never put forward in the first place.

Mr. Field: I merely suggested that the hon. Gentleman stood up proudly tonight—giving us a good example of self-hanging—and drew the attention of the House to the fact that he helped to devise the early-day motion. I thought that we were supposed to devise early-day motions to put on the Order Paper, but we learned something different tonight.
People wrote to Members of Parliament asking us to support the early-day motion that the hon. Gentleman helped others to compose. Presumably we sign early-day motions because we want to influence policy. It was crunch time tonight: the hon. Member for Kemptown made a clear case for sectional interests to be represented on pension funds. The answer from the Treasury Bench is, "You don't have to worry: people will talk about these things and it will be fine."
Pensioner interests will not be represented effectively on pension funds. The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) could not be answered, and I am sure that the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) will not receive satisfaction from the Treasury Bench that his constituent's interests will be represented. Those points underscore the claim of the hon. Member for Kemptown.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: The Minister presented another scenario: pensioners could take pension funds to court because of a lack of fiduciary duty. That is a non-starter.

Mr. Field: It certainly is, given the costs. The case has been made that, according to democratic traditions in this


country, interests are represented. Therefore, is it not slightly absurd that pensioner interests are not represented directly on pension funds? That is one view.
We know that all trustees have an overriding commitment to the welfare of a fund and its members. We know also that, although one tries to meet that objective, one's background affects what one says and how one applies one's intellect to a particular decision. As most of the members of many funds are retired, it seems absurd that we are not trying to use our influence to ensure that they are fully represented. For those reasons, I hope that the House will reject the statutory instruments on which we shall vote later.
I shall offer another reason for rejecting the statutory instruments. At the beginning of the debate, the Chairman of the Statutory Instruments Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), said that at least one of the instruments was defective. Therefore, tonight we are asked to approve an instrument that is defective and that the Government will have to amend. I confidently expected the Minister to devote a substantial part of his speech to telling us what was defective in which motion; at least then we would know that we were wrong to support it in the Division Lobby. However, we do not know what is wrong, because the Minister did not tell us—although he apologised because it was wrong.
As the instrument does not address the real feelings in the House that pensioners' views should be represented on trusts, and given that we are asked to approve defective regulations that must be changed anyway, would it not be better for the Government not to face defeat but to withdraw the statutory instrument? The Government should listen carefully, if not to the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West, then at least to the 150 other Members of Parliament who signed the motion standing in his name, because we were serious about the point that we thought he was making. They could then return to the House with new regulations that we could approve with happy hearts.

Mr. Phil Gallie: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for conducting reasonable discussions recently. Questions have been raised about why we sign early-day motions. We do so to apply pressure to Ministers so that discussions may follow and some movement may occur. That happens on occasion. In this instance, I must express some disappointment that we shall not appoint mandatory pensioner trustees to pension funds of a reasonable size. That is regrettable. At the same time, I take reassurance from my hon. Friend saying that he is committed to monitoring and to bringing about change, if that is necessary. I take some comfort from that.
I now turn to the British Telecom pension and the involvement of the Federation of Post Office and BT Pensioners. I welcome the fact that, induced by Government legislation and, perhaps, by the regulations, a position that was fought against recently by trade unions and employers alike has been changed. A change has been induced by the suggestion that the regulations will come into force, and I welcome that. I believe that the Government may regret not having taken the opportunity to go further. However, I am reassured by my hon. Friend the Minister.
I point to one fund in my constituency. The company has shrunk over a long period and without doubt, there are many more pensioners than active workers in that pension fund. In a company that is constantly under pressure, the work force could be under pressure from management to accept deals that would not always be to the benefit of the pension fund and the pensioners. That gives me some concern. Perhaps my hon. Friend will address that point when he winds up.

Sir John Cope: I had not intended to speak in this debate, but I am one of those who supported the early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), who is my parliamentary neighbour. I was concerned about a number of pension schemes with very high proportions of pensioner members, of which we have a number of examples in our part of the country—I am sure that that is true of other constituencies. I have had quite a lot of correspondence and a number of discussions with successive Ministers who have been responsible for developing pensions policy, both before the Pensions Bill and in the consultation period on these regulations.
I am concerned about the Opposition's attitude, because they seem to be trying to impose representative capacities on trustees. I do not believe that that is desirable. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said that it was part of our democratic tradition for interests to be represented. I believe that it is difficult to reproduce that tradition on boards of trustees of pension funds. I believe that all trustees responsible for pension schemes should have full responsibility for what is done by the trustees and should not see themselves as representatives of the different interests. They should all, in effect, be independent, even though, of course, they will reflect their different backgrounds.
I have another reservation about what was said by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). He urged greater simplicity and he made great play of the necessity for simplicity. However, he seemed to wish to impose simplicity by regulation. The Government are offering flexibility in schemes. That is the right thing to do, because every scheme differs in the proportion of active members and pensioner members, and in the circumstances that surround it. That is why it is right to provide flexibility as the regulations do.
I am reassured by what my hon. Friend the Minister said about the fiduciary duty of trustees, to which, as I have explained, I attach importance, and by the possibility of references to the pensions ombudsman, to the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority and, ultimately if required—this is an important safeguard which we should not dismiss—to the courts. All in all, I support the regulations as a way to ensure that all the interests are properly represented in a flexible way on every pension trustee board.

Mr. Heald: We have had an interesting discussion, which has concentrated on member-nominated trustees. We heard distinguished and thoughtful speeches from my right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope) and my hon. Friends the Members for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) and for North Thanet


(Mr. Gale)—and from my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden), who has had courteous discussions with me about the issue.
We understand what has been said about pensioner trustees—pensioners can make a very useful contribution to the running of their schemes—but we have gone far beyond the Goode recommendations, giving pensioners a significant role to play in the selection process. I think it is better for active and pensioner members, working together, to choose the trustees they really want. The Government have been consistent in what they have said about that. They have always made the point that the prescribed rules must be speedy to implement, and must include active members only.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) opened his remarks by talking about contracted-out mixed-benefit schemes, suggesting that it was too onerous to have two separate sides to such schemes. He did not seem to appreciate that that arrangement had been made to ensure that the consent of the member could be obtained before his or her accrued rights were transferred from one side of the scheme to the other. We consider that an important element of security for scheme members. It is rather rich for the hon. Gentleman to say that the proposals do not involve adequate security for members, and then to suggest a system that would interfere with that very security.
The hon. Gentleman proposed that, for large schemes with more than 1,000 members, there should be a statutory pensioner member. What about the bulk of schemes—the 100,000 with 12 members or fewer? The message would go out to them that they did not have to have a pensioner trustee; that would apply only to large schemes. There is nothing in the hon. Gentleman's proposals for the vast majority of schemes. Moreover, the fact that a scheme has 1,000 members does not mean that it has a significant number of pensioner members. Many schemes have a tiny number of pensioner members. In those circumstances, the hon. Gentleman may feel that the flexibility in the Government's proposals is far better.
Then we came to the proposals from the paymaster, the TUC. The hon. Gentleman spoke of opting-out proposals involving under a third of member-nominated trustees, completely ignoring the fact that many employers might favour existing arrangements providing for wholly independent trustees, who are thought by many to provide excellent protection for all members. He went on to propose complicating the scheme even more. The man who has previously spoken up for deregulation suggested that, instead of one threshold, we should have two—possibly more. He then suggested that we should rejig the arrangements in other ways.
The Opposition tabled 740 amendments to the Pensions Bill, many of which added to regulation. Now they turn around and pretend that they are the friend of the deregulator. I hope that hon. Members will accept that the Government have the balance right.

Mr. Gallie: Did my hon. Friend hear the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) suggest that the regulations were cumbersome? Does he agree that, had we listened to the hon. Gentleman, they would have been still more cumbersome?

Mr. Heald: It is no secret that members of the Labour party are the regulators and the Conservatives are the

deregulators. Nowhere is that more true than in pensions, although the Conservative party always stands for security and adequate protection. New Labour, new dangers; further regulation.

Mr. Frank Field: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Heald: No.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) spoke of breaking commitments. The Government have always made it clear that prescribed rules—

Mr. Field: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As we are voting on regulations that we are told are defective, will the Minister tell us what is defective about them before he finishes his speech?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): The Minister is responsible for his own speech.

Mr. Heald: I am grateful Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I have time, I will come to that point.
The hon. Member for Rochdale claimed that commitments had been broken, but the Government have always made it clear that the prescribed rules would exclude pensioner members so that, after the long procedure—which the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury so well described, although he made about two mistakes—it is possible to achieve the deadlines and to get the member-nominated trustees in place, which was highlighted as a priority by hon. Members on both sides of the House during consideration of the Pensions Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet raised a particular case. Under the protections in the Pensions Act and under these regulations taken as a whole, trustees run their schemes with the benefit of more knowledge and more help. What is more, they also have the duty, on the transfer of an undertaking, to consider how fund assets may best be protected. If my hon. Friend wishes to discuss that with me further on another occasion, I should be happy to do so.
May I cover the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr? He was anxious that pensioners should be properly protected. I have set out the protections in the regulations. They are adequate, but I can give him the commitment that he wanted, which is that the Government will monitor the operation of the regulations and that, if there is abuse, they will be changed in due course. The Government believe, however, that the prize of flexibility is so important in the context of the pensions industry, that it would be right to proceed with the regulations as they stand.
On the comments of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), I make the following points. In regulation 13(5)(ii) of the Occupational Pension Schemes (Member-nominated Trustees and Directors) Regulations, there are words purporting to be quoted from regulation 13(2)(d) that do not appear there. An amendment is to be made to identify the actual words. It is also necessary to explain the hypothesis in the second limb of paragraph 10(2) of schedule 1. Regulation 13(2)(d) was amended in the final proof of the regulations, but the consequential amendment to regulation 13(5)(ii) was overlooked. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured, however, that these are all purely technical matters of no substance and that they will all be dealt with in due course, if the House approves the regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Mixed Benefit Contracted-out Schemes) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 18th June, be approved.

Resolved,

That the draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Pensions Compensation Board Limit on Borrowing) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 18th June, be approved.—[Mr. Heald.]

Resolved,

That the draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Requirement to obtain Audited Accounts and a Statement from the Auditor) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.—[Mr. Heald.]

Motion made, and Question put, pursuant to Order [1 July],

That the Occupational Pension Schemes (Member-nominated Trustees and Directors) Regulations 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 1216), dated 2nd May 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th May, be revoked.—[Mr. Chris Smith.]

>The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes 271.

Division No. 183]
[11.37 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Connarty, Michael


Adams, Mrs Irene
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Ainger, Nick
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Corston.Jean


Allen, Graham
Cousins, Jim


Alton, David
Cummings, John


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Ashton, Joe
Cunningham, Roseanna


Austin-Walker, John
Dafis, Cynog


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dalyell, Tam


Barron, Kevin
Darling, Alistair


Battle, John
Davidson, Ian


Bayley, Hugh
Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Beggs, Roy
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bell, Stuart
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Denham, John


Bennett, Andrew F
Dewar, Donald


Benton, Joe
Dixon, Don


Bermingham, Gerald
Dobson, Frank


Berry, Roger
Donohoe, Brian H


Betts, Clive
Dowd, Jim


Blunkett, David
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Boateng, Paul
Eagle, Ms Angela


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Eastham, Ken


Bradley, Keith
Etherington, Bill


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Fatchett, Derek


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Byers, Stephen
Flynn, Paul


Callaghan, Jim
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Foulkes, George


Campbell-Savours, D N
Fraser, John


Canavan, Dennis
Fyfe, Maria


Cann, Jamie
Galbraith, Sam


Chidgey, David
Galloway, George


Church, Judith
Gapes, Mike


Clapham, Michael
Gerrard, Neil


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Godsiff, Roger


Clelland, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Gordon, Mildred


Cohen, Harry
Graham, Thomas





Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James


Grocott, Bruce
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Gunnell, John
Morgan, Rhodri


Hain, Peter
Morley, Elliot


Hall, Mike
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hanson, David
Mudie, George


Hardy, Peter
Mullin, Chris


Harman, Ms Harriet
Murphy, Paul


Harvey, Nick
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
O'Hara, Edward


Heppell, John
Olner, Bill


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
O'Neill, Martin


Hinchliffe, David
Paisley, The Reverend Ian


Hodge, Margaret
Parry, Robert


Hoey, Kate
Pearson, Ian


Home Robertson, John
Pickthall, Colin


Hood, Jimmy
Pike, Peter L


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pope, Greg


Howarth, George (Knowsley North,
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hoyle, Doug
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Purchase, Ken


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hutton, John
Radice, Giles


Illsley, Eric
Randall, Stuart


Ingram, Adam
Raynsford, Nick


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Reid, Dr John


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Rendel, David


Jamieson, David
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys M ôn)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Rogers, Allan


Jowell, Tessa
Rooney, Terry


Keen, Alan
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C & S)
Rowlands, Ted


Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Sedgemore, Brian


Khabra, Piara S
Sheerman, Barry


Kirkwood, Archy
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lewis, Terry
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Short, Clare


Litherland, Robert
Simpson, Alan


Livingstone, Ken
Skinner, Dennis


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & Fsbury)


Loyden, Eddie
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Smyth, The Reverend Martin


McAllion, John
Snape, Peter


McAvoy, Thomas
Soley, Clive


McCartney, Ian
Spearing, Nigel


Macdonald, Calum
Spellar, John


McFall, John
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


McKelvey, William
Steinberg, Gerry


Mackinlay, Andrew
Stevenson, George


McLeish, Henry
Stott, Roger


Maclennan, Robert
Strang, Dr. Gavin


McNamara, Kevin
Straw, Jack


MacShane, Denis
Sutcliffe, Gerry


McWilliam, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Madden, Max
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Maddock, Diana
Timms, Stephen


Mahon, Alice
Tipping, Paddy


Mandelson, Peter
Touhig, Don


Marek, Dr John
Trickett, Jon


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Turner, Dennis


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Tyler, Paul


Martin, Michael J (Springbum)
Vaz, Keith


Meacher, Michael
Wallace, James


Meale, Alan
Walley, Joan


Michael, Alun
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wareing, Robert N


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Watson, Mike


Milburn, Alan
Wicks, Malcolm


Miller, Andrew
Wigley, Dafydd






Williams, Rt Hon Alan (sw'n W)
Wray, Jimmy


Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wilson, Brian



Winnick, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wise, Audrey
Mr. Jon Owen Jones and Mr. Eric Martlew.


Worthington, Tony





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Alexander, Richard
Dover, Den


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Setby)
Duncan, Alan


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Duncan Smith, Iain


Amess, David
Dunn, Bob


Arbuthnot, James
Dykes, Hugh


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Ashby, David
Elletson, Harold


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Evennett, David


Baldry, Tony
Faber, David


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fabricant, Michael


Bates, Michael
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Batiste, Spencer
Fishburn, Dudley


Bellingham, Henry
Forman, Nigel


Bendall, Vivian
Forth, Eric


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Booth, Hartley
French, Douglas


Boswell, Tim
Fry, Sir Peter


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gale, Roger


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Gallie, Phil


Bowis, John
Garnier, Edward


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gill, Christopher


Brandreth, Gyles
Gillan, Cheryl


Brazier, Julian
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bright Sir Graham
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Gorst, Sir John


Browning, Mrs Angela
Grant Sir A (SW Cambs)


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Budgen, Nicholas
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Burns, Simon
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Burt, Alistair
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Butcher, John
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Butler, Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butterfill, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hannam, Sir John


Carrington, Matthew
Hargreaves, Andrew


Carttiss. Michael
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Cash, William
Hawkins, Nick


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hawksley, Warren


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Hayes, Jerry


Churchill, Mr
Heald, Oliver


Clappison, James
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hendry, Charles


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)


Colvin, Michael
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Congdon, David
Horam, John


Conway, Derek
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunt Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Couchman, James
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)


Cran, James
Hunter, Andrew


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jack, Michael


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jenkin, Bernard


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jessel, Toby


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Day, Stephen
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Devlin, Tim
Key, Robert





King, Rt Hon Tom
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knapman, Roger
Sackville, Tom


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knox, Sir David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shersby, Sir Michael


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Sims, Sir Roger


Legg, Barry
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Leigh, Edward
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Speed, Sir Keith


Lidington, David
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Spink, Dr Robert


Lord, Michael
Spring, Richard


Luff, Peter
Sproat, Iain


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


MacKay, Andrew
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Steen, Anthony


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stephen, Michael


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stem, Michael


Madel, Sir David
Streeter, Gary


Maitland, Lady Olga
Sumberg, David


Malone, Gerald
Sweeney, Walter


Mans, Keith
Sykes, John


Marland, Paul
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marlow, Tony
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mates, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Thomason, Roy


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Merchant, Piers
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mills, Iain
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Moate, Sir Roger
Tracey, Richard


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Tredinnick, David


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Trend, Michael


Neubert, Sir Michael
Trotter, Neville


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholls, Patrick
Vaughan, Sir Gerard



Viggers, Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Norris, Steve
Walden, Georqe


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waller, Gary


Page, Richard




Ward, John


Paice, James
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Waterson, Nigel


Patten, Rt Hon John
Watts, John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wells, Bowen


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Whitney, Ray


Pickles, Eric
Whittingdale, John


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Widdecombe, Ann


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wilkinson, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Willetts, David


Rathbone, Tim
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wood, Timothy


Richards, Rod
Yeo, Tim


Riddick, Graham
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Robathan, Andrew



Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Tellers for the Noes:


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Mr. Sebastian Coe and Mr. Richard Ottaway.


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Question accordingly negatived.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation).

DOUBLE TAXATION

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Argentina) Order 1996 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 12th June.

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Mongolia) Order 1996 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 12th June.

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Venezuela) Order 1996 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 12th June.—[Mr. Bates.]

Question agreed to.

Mr. Siraj Miah

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: It gives me no pleasure to raise this matter tonight, as it is a sad case. A constituent of mine who had lived in Britain for more than 20 years returned to Bangladesh in early May to see his family. At the airport, it would appear that a bribe was not paid to customs officers, whereupon my constituent was seized and beaten up. He died as a result of his injuries.
As I said, it is a sad case. Apparently, however, this is fairly widespread in the countries in the middle east. Pakistan has a similar record of harassment towards expatriates going back home. India has a similar record, and Bangladesh—the country with which I am mainly concerned—has an atrocious record. I have brought the matter to the House because expatriates and British passport holders—people who have lived in this country for a long time—are being unduly harassed.
I want to try to explain to the House what has been happening. It might seem light to us, but it is not for those people who are travelling back home and are being harassed by people at the airport. It seems that this has gone on for a long time, and it has now resulted in a murder inquiry, which I am led to believe is going on in Dhaka.
It is sad to see that these things seem to be common practice and custom when they should have been stamped out. People come to see me with such stories, and I am sure that other hon. Members have similar stories. Such things may not seem much to us, but they are big problems for people travelling back to their homeland.
The witnesses that I have interviewed over the past week say that passports are collected by immigration officers. People are allowed to pass through and their passports are returned. However, one or two individuals will be stopped and immigration officials will claim that they have not got their passports. Those people are told that they must pay around £30 or £50 to the customs office. That may not sound much to us, but £20 is a month's wages to people in Bangladesh.
When the money is paid, immigration officials say that they have found the passports and give them back. They keep the passports under the shelf and pick on one or people to harass about not having their passports so that they can ask them for money. If such people do not want any hassle, they hand over the money. That has been going on for some time.
Travellers are often told by officials that if they pay £50, their luggage will not be opened. Bangladesh is a hot country and the atmosphere is tense, especially after a long flight from the UK. If they pay, their cases are marked with crosses and allowed to proceed through customs. If they do not pay, all their cases will be opened. Witnesses say that their belongings are thrown all over the place and heated debates follow because they have paid nothing. That is another form of harassment. They have to pick up their belongings from the floor.
Some travellers have to go to another airport, Sylhet, which is 200 or 300 miles away—the same distance as between London and Newcastle. They have to fly first to


Dacca, because Sylhet is not an international airport. It would not be a bad idea to make Sylhet an international airport. That would reduce harassment, because some passengers get it at both airports.
When passengers try to catch connecting flights, they are told that there are no seats on the plane to Sylhet. If they put their money on the table, they are told that it might be possible to get them a seat. Again, they are harassed. Even if the plane flies off with half a load, it does not matter to the officials. If they have not had their money, they make the passengers wait. Sometimes, passengers have to wait 24 or more hours for the next flight, and hope that they can get on without being harassed for money at every turn. That happens even when the connecting flight has numerous empty seats. There are only three flights a day, so the wait must be at least eight hours.
Imagine travelling with a group or family. Officials tell people that there is only room for three out of a group of five, and that the others must stop behind unless they make a back-hand payment. Few people want to leave half their family behind, so they pay. People who steadfastly refuse to pay the money are told that a seat on a connecting flight will be found when they have paid the money. If they get through without paying any money, they find when they arrive at Sylhet that their bags have not been put on the aeroplane. So they have more hassle when they arrive and find that, because they did not pay the money, their baggage is not at the other end.
I do not know what happened to my constituent, Mr. Miah, but we can have a good guess that he refused to pay a bribe, was beaten up, and died as a result of his injuries, leaving a widow and three children back in Blyth Valley.
I do not know how far the problem spreads, but I realise that it has spread to many countries. I do not know what the authorities in Dhaka, Pakistan or India are doing about the problem, but the British Government do not seem to be doing anything at all. I am not suggesting that the Government are affected by the colour of a man's skin, but if a white man going through Dhaka airport had lost his life, lo and behold, all hell would have been let loose in the Chamber. But unfortunately it was not a white man. It was a coloured gentleman who lived in my consituency.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office should take a strong hand in the matter. It seems to me that the practice goes right to the top, even to the chief of police at the airport. It seems to me that the authorities in those countries are allowing the harassment of people going back home, resulting in injury and in this case even death.
I understand that a murder case is being investigated in Dhaka. I hope that the investigation is not a cover-up, but that it is done properly. In many cases, airport officials seems to have more power than the government of the country. The Foreign Minister, and even the new Prime Minister of Bangladesh, seem to be burying their heads in the sand. Airport officials harass as many people as they can so that they can extort money from them. I hope that the Minister has something to tell us this evening about these people going abroad.
Not all is well. The British Foreign Office just sits on its backside and does nothing at all. I have written to the Foreign Office about the matter, and raised it on the Floor of the House. I have received one letter since the death of this unfortunate person. The Foreign Office is burying its

head in the sand, as if it was someone else's problem. It is not someone else's problem, but the problem of our Government. It is the problem of the Foreign Office, which should sort it out with the people in Bangladesh, Pakistan and India. The harassment goes on throughout the region. In this day and age, it should stop.
International flights operated by British Airways and other airlines go into Dhaka. Why is something not done by the airlines? Why is British Airways not kicking up a fuss when it brings people to Dhaka airport knowing full well that, once they leave the aeroplane, they will be harassed by officials? Why do the airlines not ask the Foreign Office to do something?
Are the airlines burying their heads in the sand? After all, they are receiving money to carry passengers to these countries. Surely the airport authorities in Britain, along with companies such as British Airways, should at least put pressure on someone in the Foreign Office. The Foreign Office seems to be shaking its head at every turn when these questions are raised.
We want justice for Mr. Miah. He has left a widow and three children. If we do not get justice, we will be seen to be failing in our job in the House. It is wrong that this should happen. The utmost pressure should be applied by the Foreign Office. I see the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office in his place. I am not sure whether he is the right one for the job. It should have been another Minister, but never mind, I will wait and hear what he has to say.
I hope that he has done something about the problem; I hope that he has contacted the Foreign Office in Dhaka and Bangladesh and made the point that people who live in this country and return home will not be harassed again in those airports. I hope that he has something to tell me, and I hope that the harassment stops.
But I do not want it to stop only for a few months, just because someone has been murdered and a murder inquiry is being carried out—we do not know what is happening about that. We want such harassment to stop for good; we want Mr. Miah's death to bring something to bear on those evil men in Dhaka airport who trade in corruption and bribery. I hope that the Minister will have something to tell me this evening.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): I apologise to the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who holds ministerial responsibility for our relations with India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, and for consular matters. He is presently in Indonesia on official business, so is unable to respond to the debate. I will do my best to do justice both to the debate and to the interests of Mr. Miah.
The protection of Britons and British interests overseas is the most important role of our diplomatic missions. Consular officials react immediately to allegations of mistreatment of Britons overseas. It is also important that appropriate travel guidance is given to Britons before they travel, and that knowledge of difficulties that may be faced by Britons receives the widest possible publicity. I am glad that the hon. Member has raised the subject, and I congratulate him on using the Adjournment debate to


bring to the attention of the House some of the problems faced by British citizens travelling to India, Bangladesh and Pakistan.
From time to time, we have received reports of harassment of British citizens in those three countries—they have come mainly from Bangladesh, where our high commission has heard of British/Bangladeshi business men experiencing problems with customs or immigration officials at Zia international airport. Timely intervention by high commission staff has, on occasions, been sufficient to resolve the difficulties.
However, as the hon. Member for Blyth Valley has told us, an incident occurred recently at Zia international airport which tragically resulted in the death of Mr. Siraj Miah, a British/Bangladeshi business man, while he was in the custody of customs officials. The British high commission was not immediately informed of Mr. Miah's death.
We are deeply concerned by this incident, and have expressed our concern to the Bangladeshi authorities. They are conducting a murder inquiry. We have urged them to complete the inquiry as soon as possible, and to let us know the result. We have expressed our deepest sympathy to Mr. Miah's wife and family, and I reiterate that today.
We first learned of Mr. Miah's death from reports in the Dhaka press around 16 May. Mr. Siraj Miah, who, we understand, enjoyed both British and Bangladeshi nationality, reportedly died while in the custody of officials at Zia international airport on 9 May. Conflicting stories initially suggested that he had fallen against a window, cut himself and died later in hospital, or that he had become involved in a struggle and, as a result, suffered a heart attack.
It was also alleged that Mr. Miah had been taken into custody, severely beaten by customs officers and later died. No official statement has yet been made by the Bangladeshi authorities, and we do not yet know the truth of the matter.
Following those reports, and inquiries from groups representing the Bangladeshi community in the UK, our high commission made inquiries of the Dhaka police authorities on 19 May. They informed the high commission that the Dhaka metropolitan police had launched a murder investigation into Mr. Miah's death. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office instructed the high commission to bring this case to the attention of the Bangladesh Home Secretary and establish what action was taken to investigate the death. I should explain, en passant, that the Home Secretary is the senior official at the Bangladesh Home Ministry. These events took place during the period when Bangladesh had a caretaker Government, pending elections that took place on 12 June.
On 22 May, in the absence of the Bangladeshi Home Secretary, Miss Miriam McIntosh, the deputy high commissioner, called on Faizur Rahman Choudhury, the Additional Home Secretary. She expressed our concern over the circumstances surrounding Mr. Miah's death, and drew Mr. Choudhury's attention to the high level of concern in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Choudhury repeated that the case was being treated as murder, and that the Criminal Investigation Division had been charged to carry out a prompt investigation.

He said that the investigation was already under way, and promised to keep us informed of developments. He said that whoever was found to be responsible would feel the full weight of the law. Subsequently, on 3 June, the first secretary of the high commission spoke to the additional secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs, who confirmed that the investigation was continuing.
On 10 June, the first secretary called on the Additional Home Secretary and drew his attention to the UK parliamentary interest in the case, referring to the early-day motion tabled by the hon. Member for Blyth Valley and others, which focused on the treatment that returning British Bangladeshis received on arrival in Bangladesh. He also drew his attention to the fact that several organisations in the UK had written along similar lines.
He asked what steps the Bangladesh authorities intended to take to guarantee the safe arrival and the smooth—in the hon. Gentleman's word, "hassle-free"—transfer of passengers from the United Kingdom. He reiterated our concern following Mr. Miah's death, and urged him to ensure that the inquiry was completed as soon as possible.
Mr. Choudhury informed him that the murder investigation was still proceeding, and confirmed that we would be made aware of the outcome. Mr. Choudhury also assured him that the Home Ministry had instructed the civil aviation authorities on their responsibilities towards international travellers through Zia international airport. He said that the Bangladesh authorities took these responsibilities very seriously.
Following the 12 June elections and the formation of a new Government, Mr. Peter Fowler, our high commissioner in Dhaka, called on the new Home Secretary, Rafiqul Islam, on 4 July to pursue the case. At the meeting, the high commissioner emphasised the extent of feeling about the case in the United Kingdom; concern expressed at Mr. Miah's tragic death by the House; and the strength of accumulated frustration and irritation felt in the UK at the behaviour of customs and other officials in Bangladesh, especially at Zia international airport. The Home Secretary promised to follow up on this case. We will continue to urge the Home Ministry to expedite the police inquiry.
The high commissioner also raised the matter with the new Foreign Minister when he called on him on 8 July. The Foreign Minister repeated assurances that the case would be vigorously pursued by the Bangladeshi authorities.
I have set out the chronology of our involvement following Mr. Miah's tragic death to show how seriously we are treating the case, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman sees that a series of actions have been addressed to that.
The British high commission in Dhaka has expressed to the Bangladeshi authorities its dissatisfaction at the way in which British citizens are treated at Zia international airport. It intends to work closely with the airport authorities and other interested parties with a view to improving services for British passengers.
The hon. Gentleman to some extent majored on the issue of bribes. There have been reports of customs officials at Dhaka demanding bribes from returning British Bangladeshis. It is a difficult area, but we suggest that complaints be made to the police or to the Bangladesh


high commissioner in London, or that our high commission be informed, which can draw the matter to the attention of the local authorities in each case. That is our recommendation regarding individual cases.
If I may widen the point a little, many people will be familiar with the consular protection services that we provide to British citizens throughout the world. There is no distinction between British citizens of any colour, creed or religion. I reiterate that point, because it is important to understand our attitude to this.
It is worth reminding the House what we can and cannot do. We devote considerable resources to safeguarding the interests of British nationals overseas. In 1994–95, the cost of consular services overseas amounted to some £42 million. The calls on our services are increasing, as are the numbers of Britons who travel abroad. In 1995, 41.5 million UK citizens travelled overseas—an increase of 7.5 per cent. over 1994. British nationals resident overseas now number more than 10 million people. There were over 17,000 requests for consular assistance in 1995.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office gives consular help and advice to Britons abroad in a variety of ways, through our consular staff overseas. Apart from such statutory activities as passport issue, birth and death registration and the certification of various legal documents, consular staff deal with many human problems.
Those range from helping people who have lost their passport, fallen ill, been robbed, beaten up, injured or arrested—rightly or wrongly—often in a country where they are friendless and whose language and customs they do not understand. Our staff deal with football hooligans, drunks and drug smugglers, and they are required to visit regularly all prisoners who want them to do so.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Davis: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have a lot to get through.
Consular staff often see people at their most vulnerable or at their worst; they may have to deal with sudden death, suicides, emergencies, major disasters and grieving relatives.
In providing consular assistance, the Government do not draw a distinction between the different categories of British nationality. Nor do they distinguish between those who have acquired British citizenship through residence in the UK or by other means, such as the British nationality selection scheme. All receive equal treatment.
However, there are certain things that we cannot do. We have no locus to intervene with the Government of Bangladesh on behalf of one of its citizens. International law limits the formal protection that we can offer to dual nationals when they are in the country of their other nationality. We cannot interfere in the local judicial procedures of a sovereign state, nor can we investigate a crime: that is for the local police authorities. There are, therefore, legal limits to what the Government can formally do in such cases. That does not, however, prevent us doing whatever we can to help informally.
Certainly, British nationals who are also nationals of another country cannot be protected by Her Majesty's representatives from the authorities of that other country. If, under the law of the country of their second nationality, they are liable for any obligation such as military service, the fact that they also enjoy British nationality does not offer them exemption.
British citizens who have some connection with a foreign or Commonwealth country by birth, descent or marriage may be nationals of that country in addition to being British nationals. Acquisition of British nationality or citizenship by a foreigner does not necessarily cause the loss of nationality of origin. So we are limited in some respects.
Relations between the UK and Bangladesh are based on long historical ties, and marked by close friendship. The hon. Gentleman alluded to that fact. The Bangladeshi community in the UK play an important role in maintaining the strong links that exist between our countries. I am well aware of the depth of feeling surrounding the case of Mr. Siraj Miah within the British Bangladeshi community, and we take their views fully into account.
I believe that the range of actions that I have outlined shows that the British Government have taken all possible steps to ensure that a full investigation is carried out into Mr. Miah's death, and that conditions for British citizens visiting Bangladesh are improved.
I conclude by reassuring the House that we shall continue to pursue this case with the Government of Bangladesh. Depending on the outcome of their inquiry, we will then consider what additional steps we should next take.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes past Twelve midnight.